ArticleMedicine2020
The value of apolipoprotein E in distinguishing benign and malignant unilateral pleural effusions.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pleural biomarkers in diagnostics of malignant pleural effusion: a narrative review.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pleural effusion (PE) remains insurmountable challenge and public health problem, requiring novel noninvasive biomarkers for accurate diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical significance of apolipoprotein E (Apo-E) in PE, in order to determine its potential use as a diagnostic biomarker for malignant PE (MPE).PE samples were obtained from 127 patients and the etiology of PE was determined by multiple diagnostic techniques. Apo-E levels were then measured in the pleural fluid samples.58 PE patients were diagnosed with tumors, while 69 were tumor-free. Apo-E levels in MPE patients were significantly higher than those with benign PE (BPE) (P < .05). An Apo-E cut-off of 69.96 ng/mL yielded sensitivity and specificity of 79.31% and 73.91% respectively for MPE detection. The area under the curve for Apo-E was 0.793 (95% confidence interval: 0.712 to 0.860), which was smaller than that of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (Z = 2.081, P<.05). In addition, the combination of Apo-E and CEA detection yielded a higher sensitivity of 87.90% and specificity of 95.65% in diagnosing MPE.In conclusion, Apo-E levels in PE may be a potential biomarker for the detection of MPE. The combined detection of Apo-E and CEA could improve the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for MPE. These findings provide a simple and convenient method for clinical screening and detection of PE.
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.