SynthesisPloS one2019
Diagnostic accuracy of midkine on hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- New insights into biomarkers and risk stratification to predict hepatocellular cancer.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Review
- Current Advancements in Serum Protein Biomarkers for Hepatitis B Virus-Associated Hepatocyte Remodeling and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2025Review
- Prognostic and diagnostic effects of high serum midkine levels in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Oncology letters · 2024Article
- Updating the Clinical Application of Blood Biomarkers and Their Algorithms in the Diagnosis and Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Critical Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Article
- Diagnostic performance of Midkine ratios in fine-needle aspirates for evaluation of Cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules.Diagnostic pathology · 2021Article
- A blood-based prognostic liver secretome signature and long-term hepatocellular carcinoma risk in advanced liver fibrosis.Med (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the dependability and accuracy of midkine (MK) in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc and grey literature sources were searched from the date of database inception to January 2019. Two authors (B-H.Z. and B.L.) independently extracted the data and evaluated the study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) were estimated using a bivariate model. Moreover, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were generated. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) were pooled using a univariate model.
resultsNine articles (11 studies) were included (1941 participants). The bivariate analysis revealed that the sensitivity and specificity of MK for HCC diagnosis were 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.91) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.76-0.88), respectively. We also found a LR+ of 5.05 (95% CI 3.33-7.40), a LR- of 0.18 (95% CI 0.11-0.28), a DOR of 31.74 (95% CI 13.98-72.09) and an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.84-0.99). Subgroup analyses showed that MK provided the best efficiency for HCC diagnosis when the cutoff value was greater than 0.5 ng/mL.
conclusionsMK has an excellent diagnostic value for hepatocellular carcinoma.
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.