ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017
The value of the new scoring system for predicting neoplastic pericarditis in the patients with large pericardial effusion.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Development and validation a simple scoring system to identify malignant pericardial effusion.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Advanced lung cancer presenting with malignant pericardial effusion.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEarly recognition of neoplastic pericarditis (npe) is crucial for the planning of subsequent therapy. The aim of the present study was to construct the scoring system assessing the probability of npe, in the patients requiring pericardial fluid (pf) drainage due to large pericardial effusion.
methodsOne hundred forty-six patients, 74 males and 72 females, entered the study. Npe based on positive pf cytology and/or pericardial biopsy specimen was recognised in 66 patients, non-npe in 80. Original scoring system was constructed based on parameters with the highest diagnostic value: mediastinal lymphadenopathy on chest CT scan, increased concentration of tumour markers (cytokeratin 19 fragments-Cyfra 21-1 and carcinoembryonic antigen-CEA) in pf, bloody character of pf, signs of imminent cardiac tamponade on echocardiography and tachycardia exceeding 90 beats/min on ECG. Each parameter was scored with positive or negative points depending on the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV).
resultsThe area under curve (AUC) for the scoring system was 0.926 (95%CI 0.852-0.963) and it was higher than AUC for Cyfra 21-1 0.789 (95%CI 0.684-0.893) or CEA 0.758 (95%CI 0.652-0.864). The score optimally discriminating between npe and non-npe was 0 points (sensitivity 0.84, specificity 0.91, PPV 0.9, NPV 0.85).
conclusionDespite chest CT and tumour marker evaluation in pericardial fluid were good discriminators between npe and non-npe, the applied scoring system further improved the predicting of neoplastic disease in the studied population.
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.