ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019
Diagnostic accuracy of cancer ratio for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of the cancer ratio for the prediction of malignant pleural effusion: evidence from a validation study and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Predicting Malignancy in Transudative Pleural Effusions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Biochemistry-based machine learning algorithms in differentiating pleural effusion: current status and perspective.ERJ open research · 2026Review
- Diagnostic value of CEACAM6 and HE4 in pleural fluid for malignant pleural effusion.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Age affects the diagnostic accuracy of the cancer ratio for malignant pleural effusion.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Diagnostic value of periostin in lung cancer-related malignant pleural effusion.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Developing a Prediction Score for the Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Effusion: MPE Score.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Article
- Pleural biomarkers in diagnostics of malignant pleural effusion: a narrative review.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Development and Validation of a Scoring System for Early Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Effusion Based on a Nomogram.Frontiers in oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) to pleural fluid adenosine deaminase ratio (cancer ratio, CR) for malignant pleural effusion (MPE), but the results were various. Therefore, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of CR for MPE.
methodsThe PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched up to 7 June, 2019 to identify publications concerning diagnostic accuracy of CR for MPE. The sensitivities and specificities of CR in included studies were pooled with a bivariate model. A summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was used to estimate the global diagnostic accuracy of CR. Quality of the included studies was assessed with the revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2).
resultsFinally, five studies with 596 MPE patients and 863 benign pleural effusion (BPE) patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CR were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92-0.99) and 0.89 (0.69-0.97), respectively. The area under sROC curve was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99). The major design weaknesses of the included studies were patients selection and partial verification bias.
conclusionsCR has high diagnostic accuracy for MPE. Considering the design weaknesses of available studies, further studies with rigorous design are needed to further validate the findings of this meta-analysis.
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.