On the other hand, five studies (5/7, 71.4%) failed to detect a significant difference between groups in NSE on www.selleckchem.com/products/brefeldin-a.html admission, while no study failed to detect such a difference in S-100B on admission (Table (Table3).3). These findings suggest that S-100B assayed on admission may be more useful than NSE assayed concomitantly as an early biochemical predictor of success or failure in regaining consciousness. The reported values of predictive accuracy corresponding to a cut-off value on admission for S-100B prediction of persistent coma with 100% specificity in the study by Zingler and colleagues [28] is a little higher (59%) than that for NSE (56%) in the study by Fogel and colleagues [32] those detected a significant difference between the two outcome groups.

At no sampling time point other than ‘on admission’ any particular tendency was noted with respect to the clinical usefulness of NSE and S-100B as neurological prognostic predictors.’Return to independent daily life’ vs. ‘no return to independent daily life’Five studies [17,18,26,29,30] investigated the clinical usefulness of NSE and/or S-100B as a prognostic predictor in two outcome groups, ‘return to independent daily life’ and ‘no return to independent daily life’. Table Table55 summarizes the results of statistical comparison of serum levels of each biochemical marker between the two groups. Table Table66 indicates cut-off values for individual biochemical markers predicting no-return to independent daily life with the corresponding values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.

Tiainen and colleagues [26] divided their study subjects into two treatment groups, ‘hypothermia’ and ‘normothermia’ (not undergoing hypothermia), and then investigated the prognostic values of both biochemical markers in each group.Table 5Comparison of values for biomarkers between no-return and return to independent daily lifeTable 6Values of cutoff points and predictive accuracy for no-return to independent daily lifeOf the five studies mentioned above, two reported serum NSE levels on admission, while two reported serum S-100B levels on admission. No study detected a significant difference in NSE on admission between the two outcome groups, while one study (1/2, 50%) identified a significant difference between them in S-100B on admission.

On the other hand, two studies (2/2, 100%) reported a non-significant difference between AV-951 groups in NSE on admission, while no study reported such a difference in S-100B on admission (Table (Table5).5). These findings suggest that S-100B assayed on admission may be more useful than NSE assayed concomitantly as an early biochemical predictor of return or no-return to independent daily life.At no sampling time point other than ‘on admission’ was any particular tendency noted with respect to the clinical usefulness of NSE and S-100B as neurological prognostic predictors.