SynthesisTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2014
Diagnostic accuracy of MOC-31 for malignant effusions: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The clinical value of the EpCAM biomarker and its association with immune cell infiltration in bladder cancer.Diagnostic pathology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Value of Claudin-4 and EZH2 Immunohistochemistry in Effusion Cytology.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Anti-EpCAM antibodies for detection of metastatic carcinoma in effusions and peritoneal wash.Oncology letters · 2019Article
- Article
- Homocysteine: new tumor marker in pleural fluid.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015Article
- Diagnostic value of IMP3 in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
- Diagnostic value of mesothelinin pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous studies have investigated the utility of MOC-31 in the diagnosis of malignant effusions. However, the results remain controversial. The aim of this study is to determine the overall accuracy of MOC-31 for malignant effusions through a meta-analysis of published studies. Publications addressing the accuracy of MOC-31 in the diagnosis of malignant effusions were selected from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Data from selected studies were pooled to yield summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Statistical analysis was performed by Meta-Disc 1.4 and STATA 12.0 software. Eighteen studies, based on 1,748 patients, met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, and the summary estimating for MOC-31 in the diagnosis of malignant effusions were sensitivity 0.85 (95%CI 0.83-0.87), specificity 0.97 (95%CI 0.96-0.99), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) 23.81 (95%CI 15.59-36.37), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) 0.12 (95%CI 0.07-0.20), and diagnostic odds ratio 214.18 (95%CI 99.96-458.93). The SROC curve indicated that the maximum joint sensitivity and specificity (Q value) was 0.95; the area under the curve was 0.98. Our findings suggest that MOC-31 may be a useful diagnostic tool with high sensitivity and specificity for differentiating malignant effusions and benign effusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24609803What 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.