Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35209915›Full record

ReviewCancer cell international2022

Prognostic biomarkers of malignant patients with pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peng Peng, Yuan Yang, Juan Du, Kan Zhai, Huan-Zhong Shi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer cell international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Comparison of LENT, PROMISE, and RECLS scores in malignant pleural effusions.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Integrating pleural PD-1Frontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A patient-centred approach to malignant pleural effusion.European clinical respiratory journal · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

5 authors.

Peng Peng *Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital, Wuhan, 430030, China.
Yuan Yang *Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongti Nanlu, Chao-Yang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Juan Du *Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongti Nanlu, Chao-Yang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Kan ZhaiDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongti Nanlu, Chao-Yang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Huan-Zhong ShiDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital, Wuhan, 430030, China. shihuanzhong@sina.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1154-7920

Funding

Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support SML20150301Beijing Municipal Excellent Talents Foundation 2017000021223ZK38Beijing Nova Program Z171100001117015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPleural effusion is a common clinical problem in patients with cancer. We aimed to summarize all the known prognostic indicators of malignant pleural effusion.

methodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis with a systematic literature search. All prospective or retrospective cohort studies that estimated the prognostic factors of malignant pleural effusion were enrolled. Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

resultsEventually, we identified 82 studies with a total of 10,748 patients that met our inclusion criteria. The LENT score showed a good prognostic value (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.67-2.31) so did the LENT score item. In addition, clinical parameters like stage (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.25-2.25), distant metastasis (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.38-1.89), EGFR mutation (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56-0.74), serum biological parameters like hemoglobin (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.17-2.06), albumin (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.25-2.34), C-reaction protein (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.49-2.29), VEGF (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.18-2.43) and pleural effusion biological parameters like PH (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.46-2.60), glucose (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18-2.61), VEGF (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.67-2.37), and survivin (HR 2.90, 95% CI 1.17-7.20) are also prognostic factors for malignant pleural effusion.

conclusionsFor malignant pleural effusion, LENT score and its items are valuable prognostic biomarkers, so do the clinical parameters like stage, distant metastasis, EGFR mutation, the serum biological parameters like hemoglobin, albumin, C-reaction protein, VEGF and the pleural effusion biological parameters like PH, glucose, VEGF and survivin.

Indexed as

CancerMeta-analysisPleural effusionPrognosisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35209915
PMCPMC8876446

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.