ArticleHeart failure reviews2013
Diagnostic value of biochemical biomarkers in malignant and non-malignant pericardial effusion.
Article in Heart failure reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis for the value of colchicine for the therapy of pericarditis and of postpericardiotomy syndrome.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Pooled it
- Guideline
- Safety and Efficacy of Echo- vs. Fluoroscopy-Guided Pericardiocentesis in Cardiac Tamponade.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- Pericardial Disease in Patients with Cancer: Clinical Insights on Diagnosis and Treatment.Cancers · 2024Review
- Cardiac tamponade.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
- Incidence of malignant pericardial effusion in pericardiocentesis patients and post-procedure care: an oncology center pilot study.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
- The Prognostic Impact of Pericardial Fluid Cytology in Malignant Pericardial Effusion.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Development and validation a simple scoring system to identify malignant pericardial effusion.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Percutaneous pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion: predictors of mortality and outcomes.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Observational
- Impact of pericardial fluid glucose level and computed tomography attenuation values on diagnosis of malignancy-related pericardial effusion.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Observational
- Postpericardiotomy syndrome after cardiac surgery.Annals of medicine · 2020Review
- Causes and prognosis of symptomatic pericardial effusions treated by pericardiocentesis in an Asian academic medical centre.Singapore medical journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Cytopathology of pericardial effusions : Experience from a tertiary center of cardiology.Herz · 2018Article
- Pericardial Disease Associated with Malignancy.Current cardiology reports · 2018Review
- The value of the new scoring system for predicting neoplastic pericarditis in the patients with large pericardial effusion.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017Article
- Article
- Hemoglobin-associated oxidative stress in the pericardial compartment of postoperative cardiac surgery patients.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2015Article
- Article
- Diagnostic value of the biochemical tests in patients with purulent pericarditis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the biochemical composition of pericardial effusions of different etiology and to evaluate the diagnostic utility of biochemical parameters and tumor markers to discriminate malignant from benign effusion. Pericardial and serum levels of biochemical parameters and tumor markers were compared in 105 patients who underwent pericardiocentesis and pericardioscopy with targeted epicardial biopsy. Etiologic diagnosis was based on pericardial fluid and epicardial biopsy analysis by cytology, histology, immunohistochemistry, microbiology and polymerase chain reaction. The total of 105 patients comprised 29 patients with malignant and 76 patients with non-malignant pericardial effusions (40 autoreactive, 28 viral, 5 postcardiotomy syndromes and 3 associated with systemic diseases). Malignant pericardial effusions had significantly higher pericardial fluid levels of the tumor markers CEA, CA 19-9, CA 72-4, SCC and NSE (p < 0.001, p = 0.002, p < 0.001, p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively) as well as higher pericardial fluid hemoglobin (p < 0.001), pericardial fluid white blood cells (p = 0.003), pericardial fluid LDH (p < 0.001) and ratio of pericardial to serum LDH levels compared to benign effusions. None of the biochemical or cell-count parameters tested proved to be accurate enough for distinguishing malignant from benign effusions. However, measurement of pericardial CA 72-4 levels offered a high diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, particularly in bloody pericardial effusions. None of the biochemical parameters tested was useful for the discrimination of malignant from benign effusions. However, measurement of pericardial CA 72-4 levels in bloody pericardial effusions yielded a high diagnostic accuracy and thus offers the potential as a diagnostic tool to distinguish between malignant and benign effusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.