Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28685063›Full record

ArticleBiomedical reports2017

Diagnostic value of urinary-to-serum human epididymis protein 4 ratio in ovarian cancer.

Quming Fan, Guangcheng Luo, Tingting Yi, Qiang Wang, Dongsheng Wang, Guoyuan Zhang, Xingliang Jiang, Xiaolan Guo

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Altered glycosylation in cancer: A promising target for biomarkers and therapeutics.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer · 2021
    Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Quming FanDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan 637000, P.R. China.
Guangcheng LuoDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan 637000, P.R. China.
Tingting YiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan 637000, P.R. China.
Qiang WangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan 637000, P.R. China.
Dongsheng WangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan 637000, P.R. China.
Guoyuan ZhangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan 637000, P.R. China.
Xingliang JiangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan 637000, P.R. China.
Xiaolan GuoDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan 637000, P.R. China.
Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College · CNNorth Sichuan Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is one of the best-known tumor markers for ovarian cancer (OC). Emerging evidence indicates that the evaluation of serum HE4 (S-HE4) levels may be problematic when patients have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Assaying urine for HE4 levels is non-invasive alternative for the diagnosis of OC. However, whether the combined detection of S- and urinary HE4 (U-HE4) levels distinguishes OC from CKD remains unknown. To investigate this issue, the present study recruited 31 female patients with OC, 38 female patients with CKD, and 36 healthy control (HC) females. Serum and urine samples were preoperatively collected for HE4 level detection. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to assess the diagnostic performance of S-HE4 level, U-HE4 level and the ratio of urinary-to-serum HE4 level (R-HE4). Data from the current study indicated that serum HE4 levels in the OC and CKD groups were significantly higher than that in the HC group. The U-HE4 level in the OC group was significantly higher than that in the CKD and HC groups. The highest R-HE4 was observed in the HC group, followed by the OC group, and the lowest R-HE4 was observed in the CKD group. ROC analysis demonstrated that the R-HE4 was useful in differentiating OC from CKD and HC. Based on the diagnostic interval of optimal cut-off values from 36.85 to 96.15, the sensitivity and specificity of R-HE4 in differentiating OC patients from non-OC patients were 82.6 and 85.4%, respectively. Thus, the combined detection of S- and U-HE4 levels facilitates the diagnosis of OC, and R-HE4 is an effective marker for differentiating OC from CKD.

Indexed as

chronic kidney diseasehuman epididymis protein 4ovarian cancerurine

Identifiers

PMID28685063
PMCPMC5492654
OpenAlexW2616372112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.