ArticleTanaffos2017
Discriminating Tuberculous Pleural Effusion from Malignant Pleural Effusion Based on Routine Pleural Fluid Biomarkers, Using Mathematical Methods.
Article in Tanaffos, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biochemistry-based machine learning algorithms in differentiating pleural effusion: current status and perspective.ERJ open research · 2026Review
- The cancer ratio plus in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions: a scoping review of current evidence.Biochemia medica · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pleural Diseases: Current Applications and Next Steps.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid lactate dehydrogenase to adenosine deaminase ratio for tuberculous pleural effusion: an analysis of two cohorts.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
- Analysis of CD4, CD8, CD19, CD56-16, CD64, QuantiFERON biomarkers in exudative lymphocyte-dominant pleural effusion.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Article
- Paradoxical development of pleural-based masses in patients with pleural tuberculosis during treatment: a clinical observational study in China.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Observational
- Comparative Study of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in Exudative and Transudative Pleural Effusion.Tanaffos · 2022Article
- Liquid biopsy approaches for pleural effusion in lung cancer patients.Molecular biology reports · 2020Review
- Can parapneumonic effusion be diagnosed only with pleural fluid analysis?Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- The diagnostic yield of closed needle pleural biopsy in exudative pleural effusion: a retrospective 10-year study.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe differential diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) and malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is difficult because the biochemical profiles are similar. The present study aimed to differentiate TPE from MPE, using a decision tree and a weighted sparse representation-based classification (WSRC) method, based on the best combination of routine pleural effusion fluid biomarkers. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe routine biomarkers of pleural fluid, including differential cell count, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), protein, glucose and adenosine deaminase (ADA), were measured in 236 patients (100 with TPE and 136 with MPE). A Sequential Forward Selection (SFS) algorithm was employed to obtain the best combination of parameters for the classification of pleural effusions. Moreover, WSRC was compared to the standard sparse representation-based classification (SRC) and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) methods for classification accuracy.
resultsADA provided the highest diagnostic performance in differentiating TPE from MPE, with 91.91% sensitivity and 74.0% specificity. The best combination of parameters for discriminating TPE from MPE included age, ADA, polynuclear leukocytes and lymphocytes. WSRC outperformed the SRC and SVM methods, with an area under the curve of 0.877, sensitivity of 93.38%, and specificity of 82.0%. The generated flowchart of the decision tree demonstrated 87.2% accuracy for discriminating TPE from MPE.
conclusionThis study indicates that a decision tree and a WSRC are novel, noninvasive, and inexpensive methods, which can be useful in discriminating between TPE and MPE, based on the combination of routine pleural fluid biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29308081PMC5749329What 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.