Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36415437›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Serum and Urine Human Epididymis Protein 4 (HE4) in Ovarian Cancer in 15,394 Subjects: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

Neelam Nalini, Amit Kumar, Saumya Sharma, Bijeta Singh, Aditya V Singh, Jay Prakash, Shreshtha Singh

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Special Issue "Ovarian Cancer: Advances on Pathophysiology and Therapies".International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Neelam NaliniObstetrics and Gynaecology, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Amit KumarLaboratory Medicine, Rajendra institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Saumya SharmaObstetrics and Gynaecology, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Bijeta SinghObstetrics and Gynaecology, Medinirai Medical College, Ranchi, IND.
Aditya V SinghMedicine, Laxmi Chandravanshi Medical College, Ranchi, IND.
Jay PrakashCritical Care Medicine, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Shreshtha SinghAnaesthesia, John Hunter Hospital, New South Wales, AUS.
Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences · INJohn Hunter Hospital · AUMaharani Laxmi Bai Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background We aim to determine the diagnostic accuracy of both serum and urinary human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Methods Electronic databases and search engines such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched systematically by two independent reviewers to retrieve articles published from inception to June 11, 2022. The diagnostic accuracy of serum and urinary HE4 was computed using the random-effects model in terms of pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). To explain any source of possible heterogeneity, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tools recommended by the Cochrane Library. Result and conclusion This meta-analysis included a total of 38 studies of serum HE4 involving 14,745 subjects and five studies for urinary HE4 involving 649 subjects. We observed acceptable pooled sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) at 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.82), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.87-0.95), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91), and 43 (95% CI: 25-72), respectively, for serum HE4 for discriminating ovarian cancer. For urine HE4, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, SROC, and DOR were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.64-0.90), 0.93 (95% CI: 0.83-0.98), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95), and 55 (95% CI: 15-198), respectively. Therefore, HE4 is a promising biomarker with a high degree of specificity and acceptable sensitivity for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Registration number This meta-analysis was performed after the registration of the protocol in the PROSPERO database with registration number CRD42022324947.

Indexed as

biomarkercarbohydrate antigen 125he4ovarian cancertransvaginal sonography

Identifiers

PMID36415437
PMCPMC9677808
OpenAlexW4306779942

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.