ArticleBiochemia medica2018
Diagnostic value of tumour markers in pleural effusions.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determination of HE4 in pleural fluid and ratio: considerations and diagnostic performance for malignant pleural effusion.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic value of pleural fluid neuron-specific enolase for malignant pleural effusion.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Development of a scoring system based on a nomogram to identify malignant pleural effusion.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid, serum carcinoembryonic antigen, and their ratio for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- CA125 as a Potential Biomarker in Non-Malignant Serous Effusions: Diagnostic and Prognostic Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Tumor Markers in Pleural Fluid: A Comprehensive Study on Diagnostic Accuracy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Influence of age and sex on the diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid carcinoembryonic antigen for malignant pleural effusion: aFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Value of Six Tumor Markers for Malignant Pleural Effusion in 1,230 Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2022Article
- Development of risk prediction models for lung cancer based on tumor markers and radiological signs.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
- Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid to serum carcinoembryonic antigen ratio and delta value for malignant pleural effusion: findings from two cohorts.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe investigated whether tumour markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), and cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1) in pleural effusions and serum can be used to distinguish pleural effusion aetiology. MATERIALS AND
methodsDuring the first thoracentesis, we measured pleural fluid and serum tumour marker concentrations and calculated the pleural fluid/serum ratio for patients diagnosed with pleural effusion, using electrochemiluminescence immunoassays. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out and the Hanley and McNeil method was used to test the significance of the difference between the areas under ROC curves (AUCs). In order to detect which tumour marker best discriminates between malignant and non-malignant pleural effusions and to establish the predictive value of those markers, discriminant function analysis (DFA) and logistic regression analysis were utilized.
resultsSerum tumour markers CYFRA 21-1 and NSE as well as pleural NSE were good predictors of pleural effusion malignancy and their combined model was found statistically significant (Chi-square = 28.415, P < 0.001). Respective ROC analysis showed significant discrimination value of the combination of these three markers (AUC = 0.79).
conclusionsSerum markers showed superiority to pleural fluid markers in determining pleural fluid aetiology. Serum CYFRA 21-1 and NSE concentrations as well as pleural fluid NSE values had the highest clinical value in differentiating between malignant and non-malignant pleural effusions. The combination of these three markers produced a significant model to resolve pleural effusion aetiology.
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.