Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27835633›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Tumor-Specific D-Dimer Concentration Ranges and Influencing Factors: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Jing Yu, Dongqing Li, Dansheng Lei, Feng Yuan, Feng Pei, Huifeng Zhang, Anming Yu, Kun Wang, Hu Chen, Liang Chen and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Appraisal of Basic-Hemostatic Markers in Lung Cancer Patients During Follow-Up Care After Radiotherapy Treatment.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018
    Article
  19. Review
  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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jing YuThe State Key Laboratory of Virology, College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China.
Dongqing LiDepartment of Microbiology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Wuhan University; Wuhan, China.
Dansheng LeiDepartment of Laboratory, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Feng YuanDepartment of Laboratory, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Feng PeiDepartment of Laboratory, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Huifeng ZhangDepartment of Laboratory, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Anming YuStago Diagnosis Company, Wuhan, China.
Kun WangDepartment of Laboratory, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Hu ChenDepartment of Laboratory, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Liang ChenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Renmin Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Xianglei WuLaboratory of Immunology, University of Lorraine, Lorraine, France.
Xianli TongDepartment of Laboratory, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Yefu WangThe State Key Laboratory of Virology, College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China.
Hubei Cancer Hospital · CNWuhan University · CNUniversité de Lorraine · FRWuhan College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

D-dimer level in cancer patients is associated with risk of venous thromboembolism and deep venous thrombosis. Most cancer patients have "abnormal" D-dimer levels based on the current normal reference range. To investigate tumor-specific D-dimer reference range, we compared D-dimer levels for nine different tumour types with healthy controls by using simultaneous quantile regression and constructing a median, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile model of normal tumour D-dimer concentration. Associations with tumour primary site, stage, pathological type, and treatment were also explored. Additionally, 190 patients were tracked to reveal the relevance of initial D-dimer levels to cancer prognosis. D-dimer ranges (median, 5th, 95th) in various cancers (mg/L) were: liver 1.12, 0.27, 5.25; pancreatic 0.96, 0.23, 4.81; breast 0.44, 0.2, 2.17; gastric 0.65, 0.22, 5.03; colorectal 0.73, 0.22, 4.45; lung 0.7, 0.25, 4.0; gynaecological 0.61, 0.22, 3.98; oesophageal 0.23, 0.7, 3.45; and head and neck 0.22, 0.44, 2.19. All were significantly higher than that of healthy controls (0.18, 0.07, 0.57). D-dimer peaked 1-2 days postoperatively but had decreased to the normal range by 1 week. Additionally, cancer patients with high initial D-dimer were shown a tendency of poor prognosis in survival rate. In conclusion, D-dimer levels in cancer depend on patient age, tumour primary site, and tumour stage. Thrombosis prevention is necessary if D-dimer has not decreased to the tumor-specific baseline a week after surgery.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge FactorsAnticoagulantsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation ProductsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingOrgan SpecificityPrognosisReference ValuesSurvival RateAnticoagulantsFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Productsfibrin fragment D

Identifiers

PMID27835633
PMCPMC5105993
OpenAlexW2554733659

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.