ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Diagnostic accuracy of human epididymis secretory protein 4 for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pleural fluid human epididymis secretory protein 4 in differentiating between malignant and benign pleural effusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Serum human epididymis Protein-4 outperforms conventional biomarkers in the early detection of non-small cell lung cancer.iScience · 2024Article
- The Generation of a Lung Cancer Health Factor Distribution Using Patient Graphs Constructed From Electronic Medical Records: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Article
- The Role of Human Epididymis Protein 4 in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Diseases: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Pleural biomarkers in diagnostics of malignant pleural effusion: a narrative review.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Value of human epididymis secretory protein 4 in differentiating malignant from benign pleural effusion: an analysis of 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of serum human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4) for lung cancer, but their results were heterogeneous. The aim of this study was to systematically review the available studies and pool their results using meta-analysis.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched up to January 1, 2019 to identify studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of HE4 for lung cancer. We assessed the quality of eligible studies with the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios were pooled using a bivariate model. Deeks's test was applied to detect the degree of publication bias.
resultsA total of 16 studies with 18 cohorts (1,756 lung cancers and 1,446 controls) were included. HE4 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.54-0.75), specificity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92), positive likelihood ration of 5.3 (95% CI: 3.7-7.6) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.30-0.52). Patient selection bias and partial verification bias were the major design weaknesses of available studies. No publication bias was observed.
conclusionsHE4 has moderate diagnostic accuracy for lung cancer. Its result should be interpreted in parallel with clinical findings and the results of other conventional tests. Further studies are still needed to rigorously evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of HE4 for lung cancer.
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.