ArticleLung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society
Pleural fluid lysozyme as a diagnostic biomarker of pleural tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Fluorescence-Polarization-Based Assaying of Lysozyme with Chitooligosaccharide Tracers.Biomolecules · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Pleural fluid lysozyme (LP) and its ratio to serum lysozyme (LP/LS) have been proposed as potential biomarkers for diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE). We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of LP and LP/LS for TPE and evaluated their ability to differentiate TPE from other effusions. Methods: We queried the PubMed and Embase databases for studies indexed until October 2021. We included studies that (a) provided information regarding the sensitivity and specificity of LP or LP/LS for the diagnosis of TPE, or (b) compared LP or LP/LS between TPE and malignant or parapneumonic effusions. We used hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic plots to model summary sensitivity and specificity. Random effects modeling was employed to pool standardized mean differences (SMD) across descriptive studies comparing TPE and other effusions. Results: We included 11 publications in our review, most of which were small and of poor quality. The summary estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.00), 0.89 (95% CI 0.63-0.97), and 129.88 (95% CI 6.26-2695), and 0.98 (95% CI 0.58-1.00), 0.91 (95% CI 0.84-0.96), and 708.47 (95% CI 11.42-43946), respectively, for LP and LP/LS. Mean LP and LP/LS in TPE were significantly higher than in malignant effusions (summary SMD 1.51 [95% CI 1.04-1.98] and 1.77 [95% CI 1.31-2.22], respectively), and parapneumonic effusions (summary SMD 0.86 [95% CI 0.51-1.22] and 1.15 [95% CI 0.64-1.66], respectively). Conclusion: There is low-quality evidence of good diagnostic accuracy for both LP and LP/LS in identifying TPE, the latter being marginally superior.
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.