ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2015
Evaluation of the utility of serum prolidase as a marker for liver fibrosis.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deiminated proteins in extracellular vesicles and serum of llama (Lama glama)-Novel insights into camelid immunity.Molecular immunology · 2020Article
- The Serum Prolidase Enzyme Activity as a Biomarker for Evaluation of the Subclinical Vascular Damage in Children with Epilepsy.Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiver dysfunction is common and often unrecognized. Liver biopsy is the gold standard in the assessment of liver fibrosis, but has disadvantages. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of serum prolidase enzyme activity (SPA) in predicting the presence and degree of liver fibrosis, as compared with liver biopsy. Further, we evaluated the effect of hemolysis on measured SPA levels.
methodsWe undertook a prospective case control study. Thirty eight outpatients without apparent liver illness and 20 patients with liver pathology scheduled to undergo liver biopsy had their SPA levels measured.
resultsPatients undergoing liver biopsy had higher SPA levels (361 (268) IU/l [median (interquartile range)]) compared with controls (169 (160) (P < 0.001)). A SPA cutoff value of 200 IU/l yielded a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 59%, an odds ratio of 11.5, negative predictive value of 92%, and a positive predictive value of 50%. Hemolysis causes an apparent increase in SPA levels.
conclusionHigher SPA levels in patients undergoing liver biopsies compared with controls may reflect the presence of liver fibrosis. SPA levels could not be used to stage the degree of fibrosis. SPA measurement may be useful in the diagnostic workup of suspected liver disease.
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.