Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28968445›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Pleural effusion biomarkers and computed tomography findings in diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma: A retrospective study in a single center.

Takehiro Otoshi, Yuki Kataoka, Shunkichi Ikegaki, Emiko Saito, Hirotaka Matsumoto, Sawako Kaku, Masatoshi Shimada, Masataka Hirabayashi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical utility of diagnostic biomarkers in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Takehiro OtoshiDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9748-9468
Yuki KataokaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan.
Shunkichi IkegakiDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan.
Emiko SaitoDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan.
Hirotaka MatsumotoDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan.
Sawako KakuDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan.
Masatoshi ShimadaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan.
Masataka HirabayashiDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Hyogo, Japan.
Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to examine the clinical value of the pleural effusion (PE) biomarkers, soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP), cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and the utility of combining chest computed tomography (CT) findings with these biomarkers, in diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a single center. Consecutive patients with undiagnosed pleural effusions who underwent PE analysis between September 2014 and August 2016 were reviewed. This study included 240 patients (32 with MPM and 208 non-MPM). SMRP and the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio had a sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing MPM of 56.3% and 86.5%, and 87.5% and 74.0%, respectively. Using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis of the ability of these markers to distinguish MPM from all other PE causes, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for SMRP and the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio was 0.804 and 0.874, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of SMRP combined with the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio were 93.8% and 64.9%, respectively. The sensitivity of the combination of SMRP, the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio, and the presence of Leung's criteria (a chest CT finding that is suggestive of malignant pleural disease) was 93.8%. In conclusion, the combined PE biomarkers had a high sensitivity for diagnosing MPM, although the addition of chest CT findings did not improve the sensitivity of SMRP combined with the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio. Combination of these biomarkers helped to rule out MPM effectively among patients at high risk of suffering MPM and would be valuable especially for old frail patients who have difficulty in undergoing invasive procedures such as thoracoscopy.

Indexed as

AgedAntigens, NeoplasmFemaleHumansKeratin-19Lung NeoplasmsMaleMesotheliomaMesothelioma, MalignantMiddle AgedPleural EffusionPleural NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray Computedantigen CYFRA21.1Antigens, NeoplasmKeratin-19

Identifiers

PMID28968445
PMCPMC5624636
OpenAlexW2763117277

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.