ArticleTanaffos2021
Value of Cancer Ratio plus and Cancer Ratio Formulation in Distinguishing Malignant Pleural Effusion from Tuberculosis and Parapneumonic Effusion.
Article in Tanaffos, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Malignancy in Transudative Pleural Effusions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The cancer ratio plus in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions: a scoping review of current evidence.Biochemia medica · 2026Article
- Age affects the diagnostic accuracy of the cancer ratio for malignant pleural effusion.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of our study is to determine the clinical availability accessibility of cancer ratio and cancer ratio plus formulations, previously validated and reported to have clinical value in distinguishing malignant pleural effusion from tuberculosis pleurisy and parapneumonic effusion. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study of patients hospitalized with Malignant Pleural Effusion (MPE), tuberculosis (TPE) and pararapneumonic effusion (PPE) between 2009 and 2018. Results: Totally 232 patients, 101(43.5 %) having MPE, 86 (37.1 %) having PPE and 45 (19.4 %) TPE were examined. When compared with each other, "serum LDH / PS Lymphocyte %", "Cancer ratıo" and "Cancer ratıo plus" values were statistically different between the groups (p = 0.021, p <0.001 and p = 0.015, respectively). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, cancer ratio, serum LDH: pleural fluid lymphocyte count ratio was in positive correlation with MPE. The sensitivity and specificity of "cancer ratio", "cancer ratio plus" and "ratio of serum LDH: pleural fluid lymphocyte count" were 84.2 % (95% CI 75.6- 90.7) and 52.7 (95% CI 43.8- 61.5), and 82.2 % (95% CI 73.3- 89.1) and 45.8 (95%CI 37.1- 54.7), 53.5% (95% CI 43.3- 63.5) and 67.2% (95% CI 0.68-0.94) at the cut-off level of >14.25, >28.7, and >636, respectively. When considering only MPE and TPE patients, the specificity of cancer ratıo and cancer ratıo plus increased. Conclusion: The cancer ratio plus rate (the ratio of "cancer ratio"formulation to the percentage of differential pleural lymphocyte count) was almost the same as the cancer ratio in separating the malignant pleural effusion from the TPE and PPE, while it has better specificity only in differentiating malignant effusions from tuberculosis effusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35382086PMC8978044What 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.