ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Development and validation a simple scoring system to identify malignant pericardial effusion.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a scoring system based on a nomogram to identify malignant pleural effusion.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- A scoring model based on the pleural effusion adenosine deaminase-to-serum C-reactive protein ratio for differentiating tuberculous pleural effusion from non-tuberculous benign pleural effusion.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) is a serious complication in patients with advanced malignant tumors, which indicates a poor prognosis. However, its clinical manifestations lack specificity, making it challenging to distinguish MPE from benign pericardial effusion (BPE). The aim of this study was to develop and validate a scoring system based on a nomogram to discriminate MPE from BPE through easy-to-obtain clinical parameters. Methods: In this study, the patients with pericardial effusion who underwent diagnostic pericardiocentesis in Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province from February 2013 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The eligible patients were divided into a training group (n = 161) and a validation group (n = 66) according to the admission time. The nomogram model was established using the meaningful indicators screened by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and multivariate logistic regression. Then, a new scoring system was constructed based on this nomogram model. Results: The new scoring system included loss of weight (3 points), no fever (4 points), mediastinal lymph node enlargement (2 points), pleural effusion (6 points), effusion adenosine deaminase (ADA≦18U/L) (5 points), effusion lactate dehydrogenase (LDH>1033U/L) (7 points), and effusion carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA>4.9g/mL) (10 points). With the optimal cut-off value was 16 points, the area under the curve (AUC), specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) for identifying MPE were 0.974, 95.1%, 91.0%, 85.6%, 96.8%, 10.56 and 0.05, respectively, in the training set and 0.950, 83.3%, 95.2%, 90.9%, 90.9%, 17.50, and 0.18, respectively, in the validation set. The scoring system also showed good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating MPE caused by lung cancer from tuberculous pericardial effusion (TPE) and MPE including atypical cell from BPE. Conclusion: The new scoring system based on seven easily available variables has good diagnostic value in distinguishing MPE from BPE.
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.