Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34950582›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Predictive Performance of Serum S100B

Eszter Anna Janka, Tünde Várvölgyi, Zoltán Sipos, Alexandra Soós, Péter Hegyi, Szabolcs Kiss, Fanni Dembrovszky, Dezső Csupor, Patrik Kéringer, Dániel Pécsi and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eszter Anna JankaDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Tünde VárvölgyiDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Zoltán SiposInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Alexandra SoósInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Péter HegyiInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Szabolcs KissInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Fanni DembrovszkyInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Dezső CsuporInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Patrik KéringerInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Dániel PécsiInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Margit SolymárInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Gabriella EmriDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
University of Pecs · HUUniversity of Debrecen · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, no consensus on the use of blood tests for monitoring disease recurrence in patients with resected melanoma exists. The only meta-analysis conducted in 2008 found that elevated serum S100B levels were associated with significantly worse survival in melanoma patients. Serum LDH is an established prognostic factor in patients with advanced melanoma.

objectiveTo compare the discriminative and prognostic ability of serum S100B with that of serum LDH in patients with melanoma.

methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42019137138).

resultsA quantitative analysis of data from 6 eligible studies included 1,033 patients with cutaneous melanoma. The discriminative ability of serum S100B at identifying disease relapse [pooled Area Under the ROC (AUROC) 78.64 (95% CI 70.28; 87.01)] was significantly greater than the discriminative ability of serum LDH [AUROC 64.41 (95% CI 56.05; 7278)] (p=0.013). Ten eligible studies with 1,987 patients were included in the risk of death analysis. The prognostic performance of serum S100B [pooled estimate of adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.78 (95% CI 1.38; 2.29)] was independent but not superior to that of serum LDH [HR 1.60 (95% CI 1.36; 2.29)]. LIMITATIONS: A relatively small number of articles were eligible and there was considerable heterogeneity across the included studies.

conclusionsSerum biomarkers may provide relevant information on melanoma patient status and should be further researched. Serum S100B is a valid marker for diagnosis of melanoma recurrence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42019137138).

Indexed as

COXLDHmelanomameta-analysisROCS100B

Identifiers

PMID34950582
PMCPMC8688362
OpenAlexW4200250482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.