Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21448170›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2011

Markers for the non-invasive diagnosis of mesothelioma: a systematic review.

S van der Bij, E Schaake, H Koffijberg, J A Burgers, B A J M de Mol, K G M Moons

Abstract readEvaluation StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2018
    Guideline
  3. Diagnostic accuracy of MOC-31 for malignant effusions: a meta-analysis.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Serum mesothelin for diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma: an individual patient data meta-analysis.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

S van der BijJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Stratenum 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. s.vanderbij@umcutrecht.nl
E Schaake
H Koffijberg
J A Burgers
B A J M de Mol
K G M Moons

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous markers have been evaluated to facilitate the non-invasive diagnostic work-up of mesothelioma. The purpose of this study was to conduct a structured review of the diagnostic performance of non-invasive marker tests for the detection of mesothelioma in patients with suspected mesothelioma.

methodsStudies on the diagnostic accuracy of serum and cytological markers published till 31 December 2009, available in either PUBMED or Embase, to detect or exclude the presence of mesothelioma were extracted. Study quality was assessed with use of the Quadas criteria.

resultsIn total, 82 articles were included in this systemic review. Overall, quality of the incorporated studies to address our objective was poor. The most frequently studied immunohistochemical markers for cytological analysis were EMA, Ber-Ep4, CEA, and calretinin. The most frequently investigated serum marker was soluble mesothelin-related protein (SMRP). The markers CEA, Ber-EP4, and calretinin were most valuable in discriminating mesothelioma from other malignant diseases. Markers EMA and SMRP were most valuable in discriminating mesothelioma from non-malignant diseases. No marker performed well in discriminating between mesothelioma and all other diseases.

conclusionCurrently, there is only limited evidence to properly assess the value of non-invasive marker tests in the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Studies were of limited value to address our objective and results showed considerable unexplained study heterogeneity.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansMesotheliomaPleural EffusionPleural NeoplasmsPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID21448170
PMCPMC3078590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.