ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2015
Diagnostic accuracy of serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen and squamous cell carcinoma antigen-immunoglobulin M for hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Proteomic Profiling and Artificial Intelligence for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Translational Medicine.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Direct comparison of five serum biomarkers in early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
- Serum and tissue markers in hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma: clinical and prognostic implications.Oncotarget · 2017Review
- Circulating predictive and diagnostic biomarkers for hepatitis B virus-associated hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Diagnostic and prognostic roles of serum vitronectin in hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of individual studies have evaluated the diagnostic efficiency of serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCCA) and SCCA-immunoglobulin (IgM) for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the results have been conflicting. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of serum SCCA and SCCA-IgM for HCC. A systematic review of related studies was conducted and relevant data on the accuracy of serum SCCA and SCCA-IgM in the diagnosis of HCC were pooled using random-effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) analysis was used to summarize the overall test performance. A total of 12 studies were included in our meta-analysis. The summary estimates for serum SCCA and SCCA-IgM for HCC diagnosis in the included studies were as follows: Sensitivity = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.56-0.62) vs. 0.60 (95% CI: 0.56-0.63); specificity = 0.76 (95% CI: 0.73-0.79) vs. 0.70 (95% CI: 0.67-0.73); diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) = 6.68 (95% CI: 3.71-12.03) vs. 7.32 (95% CI: 3.31-16.15); and area under the SROC curve = 0.7826 vs. 0.7955. Therefore, SCCA and SCCA-IgM exhibited moderate diagnostic accuracy for HCC. Due to the design limitations, the results of published studies should be interpreted with caution. In addition, well-designed studies including larger sample sizes should be conducted to rigorously evaluate the diagnostic value of SCCA and SCCA-IgM.
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.