SynthesisAnnals of medicine2021
Diagnostic accuracy of the cancer ratio for the prediction of malignant pleural effusion: evidence from a validation study and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biochemistry-based machine learning algorithms in differentiating pleural effusion: current status and perspective.ERJ open research · 2026Review
- Development of a scoring system based on a nomogram to identify malignant pleural effusion.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- The Use of "Cancer Ratio" in Differentiating Malignant and Tuberculous Pleural Effusions: Protocol for a Prospective Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Observational
- LDH/ADA ratio in pleural fluid for the diagnosis of infectious pleurisy.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Article
- Risk factors for symptomatic malignant pleural effusion recurrence in patients with actionable mutations in advanced lung adenocarcinoma.Translational lung cancer research · 2023Article
- 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
- A Case of Pneumonia Masking Pleural Malignancy.OncoTargets and therapy · 2022Article
- Adenosine deaminase-based measurement in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusion: a multicenter retrospective study.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of serum LDH to pleural ADA ratio (cancer ratio, CR)for malignant pleural effusion (MPE) through an original study and meta-analysis.
methodsWe retrospectively collected data from 145 patients with MPE and 117 cases of benign pleural effusions (BPE). The diagnostic performance of CR and a typical biomarker of MPE, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), were analysed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) as a measure of accuracy. The overall diagnostic accuracy of CR was summarised by a standard diagnostic meta-analysis.
resultsSignificantly higher CR and pleural CEA values were observed in the MPE patients than in the BPE patients. At a cut-off value of 14.97, CR showed high sensitivity (0.91), low specificity (0.67), and high AUC (0.85). The combination of CEA and CR increased the AUC to 0.98. The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 2,078 patients. The pooled values for sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of CR were 0.96, 0.88, 7.70, 0.05, and 169, respectively. The AUC of the summary ROC of CR was 0.98.
conclusionCR has a high diagnostic accuracy for predicting MPE, especially when used in combination with pleural CEA.
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.