ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Bioinformatic Analysis of Biomarkers for Prognosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of combination of biomarkers for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- A Diagnostic Approach to Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.Pulmonary therapy · 2025Article
- Pleural Mesothelioma: Advances in Blood and Pleural Biomarkers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In previous studies, non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers showed great benefit in the early-stage diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). However, the accuracy of different biomarkers was controversial. In this study, meta-analysis and bioinformatics analysis were conducted to compare the accuracy of the following three biomarkers and explore the relationship between the gene expression levels and MPM. A systematic search of meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies from the inception to March 2021. QUADAS-2 for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies. The meta-analysis was performed utilizing Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.4 software. The meta-analysis results showed that 31 studies that involved 8750 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity (SPE) were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.97) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.95) for Fibulin-3, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.51-0.78) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96) for mesothelin (MSLN), 0.68 (95% CI: 0.63,0.73) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82,0.90) for soluble mesothelin-related peptides (SMRP), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91) for MSLN + SMRP + Fibulin-3. Compared with the other two biomarkers, Fibulin-3 may be more appropriate to be one of the indicators for combined diagnosis. Bioinformatics analysis showed that the low expression level of the MSLN gene was significantly related to longer survival time and better prognosis of MPM patients. However, considering the limitation in the quality and sample size of the included research, further studies are required.
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.