Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35571668›Full record

ArticleTranslational cancer research2022

Diagnostic value of combined detection of CA72-4, CA19-9, and carcinoembryonic antigen comparing to CA72-4 alone in gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Huiping Wang, Weibiao Jin, Chuanqi Wan, Chen Zhu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational cancer research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Huiping WangDepartment of Tumor Thoracic Surgery, Pujiang Branch of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Jinhua, China.
Weibiao JinDepartment of Tumor Thoracic Surgery, Pujiang Branch of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Jinhua, China.
Chuanqi WanDepartment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.
Chen ZhuDepartment of ICU, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China.
First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University · CNZhejiang Chinese Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in humans. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, and CA72-4 are all serum tumor markers for diagnosis of gastric cancer. However, the results of studies reporting the diagnosis of the combined three varied. In this study, the combined diagnostic performance of these 3 serum tumor markers was systematically evaluated. Methods: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang data were searched for literature on serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, and CA72-4 in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. The inclusion criteria were designed according to the Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study (PICOS) principles. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) scoring scale was used to assess the quality of the literature. After extracting the data, Stata 16.0 software was used for meta-analysis. Results: A total of 10 articles were finally included, and a total of 6,574 patients participated in diagnosis, 3,077 for confirmed GC and 3,497 for non-GC respectively. Meta-analysis results showed that the diagnostic sensitivity of the combined diagnosis of the 3 tumor markers was 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54, 0.77], the specificity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.93), the positive likelihood ratio was 5.9 (95% CI: 3.5, 9.8), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.38 (95% CI: 0.27, 0.53), and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 16 (95% CI: 8, 32). The diagnostic sensitivity of CA72-4 diagnosis alone was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.73), specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.90), the positive likelihood ratio was 4.0 (95% CI: 3.1, 5.1), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.71), and the DOR was 8 (95% CI: 5, 14). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) values of the combined three diagnosis and CA72-4 diagnosis alone were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.89) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.87), respectively, the difference was statistically significant (Z=4.86, P<0.05). Discussion: The combined use of the 3 tumor markers has higher sensitivity and specificity than single marker diagnosis in the diagnosis of gastric cancer.

Indexed as

carbohydrate antigen (CA)Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)diagnosis of gastric cancerserum tumor marker

Identifiers

PMID35571668
PMCPMC9091039
OpenAlexW4280528664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.