ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Comparative Assessment of Two Strategies for Interpreting Tumor Markers in Ascitic Effusions.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic Role of Tumor and Inflammatory Biomarkers in Ascitic Fluid: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA): Origin, Role in Oncology, and Concentrations in Serum and Peritoneal Fluid.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThere are two strategies for the interpretation of tumor markers (TM) in fluid effusions: i) high cut-off and ii) fluid/serum ratio (F/S) and low cut-off. The objective of this study is to compare these two strategies and to determine whether diagnostic accuracy improves by the identification of possible false positives using Adenosine deaminase (ADA), C reactive protein (CRP) and % of polymorphonuclear cells (%PN). PATIENTS AND
methodsWe studied 157 ascitic fluids, 74 of which were malignant. ADA, CRP and %PN were determined in ascitic fluid, and Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Cancer antigen 72-4 (CA72-4), Cancer antigen CA19-9 and Cancer antigen 15-3 (CA15-3) in both fluid and serum.
resultsThe strategy of high cut-off showed 59.5% sensitivity at 100% specificity. The F/S strategy showed 75.7% sensitivity at 95.2% specificity. Subclassifying cases with ADA, CRP and %PN negative showed 67.5% sensitivity at 100% specificity for high cut-off and for the F/S strategy was 81.7% sensitivity at 98.7% specificity.
conclusionThe strategy of F/S with negative ADA, CRP and %PN allow the best interpretation for TM in the ascitic fluid.
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.