Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25693076›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Diagnostic value of multiple tumor markers for patients with esophageal carcinoma.

Jun Zhang, Zhenli Zhu, Yan Liu, Xueyuan Jin, Zhiwei Xu, Qiuyan Yu, Ke Li

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. BBS5 as a robust prognostic biomarker in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: validation in two independent cohorts.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Hypermethylation ofAmerican journal of translational research · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Circulating long non-coding RNANon-coding RNA research · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

Jun ZhangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Shantou University Medical College, No. 22 Xinling Road, Shantou, Guangdong, 515041, China.
Zhenli ZhuDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Shantou University Medical College, No. 22 Xinling Road, Shantou, Guangdong, 515041, China.
Yan LiuDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Shantou University Medical College, No. 22 Xinling Road, Shantou, Guangdong, 515041, China.
Xueyuan JinDepartment of International Center for Liver Disease Treatment, 302 PLA hospital, No. 100 Xisihuan Road, Beijing, 100017, China.
Zhiwei XuDepartment of Medical Quality Control, 302 PLA Hospital, No. 100 Xisihuan Road, Beijing, 100017, China.
Qiuyan YuDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Shantou University Medical College, No. 22 Xinling Road, Shantou, Guangdong, 515041, China.
Ke LiDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Shantou University Medical College, No. 22 Xinling Road, Shantou, Guangdong, 515041, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious studies assessing the diagnostic value of serum tumor markers in patients with esophageal cancer remain controversial. This study aims to comprehensively and quantitatively summarize the potential diagnostic value of 5 serum tumour markers in esophageal cancer.

methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), through February 28, 2013, without language restriction. Studies were assessed for quality using QUADAS (quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy). The positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were pooled separately and compared with overall accuracy measures using diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and symmetric summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves.

resultsOf 4391 studies initially identified, 44 eligible studies including five tumor markers met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, while meta-analysis could not be conducted for 12 other tumor markers. Approximately 79.55% (35/44) of the included studies were of relatively high quality (QUADAS score≥7). The summary estimates of the positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for diagnosing EC were as follows: CEA, 5.94/0.76/9.26; Cyfra21-1, 12.110.59/22.27; p53 antibody, 6.71/0.75/9.60; SCC-Ag, 7.66/0.68/12.41; and VEGF-C, 0.74/0.37/8.12. The estimated summary receiver operating characteristic curves showed that the performance of all five tumor markers was reasonable.

conclusionsThe current evidence suggests that CEA, Cyfra21-1, p53, SCC-Ag and VEGF-C have a potential diagnostic value for esophageal carcinoma.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEsophageal NeoplasmsHumansBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID25693076
PMCPMC4333286

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.