SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2024
Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of heat shock proteins and their combination with Alpha-Fetoprotein in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of circulating long noncoding RNAs in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Adherence to STARD guidelines in miRNA diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Heat Shock Proteins as Cancer Biomarkers: From Mechanism to Clinical Application.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
- Evaluation of PDZD11 in hepatocellular carcinoma: prognostic value and diagnostic potential in combination with AFP.Frontiers in oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA growing body of research suggests that heat shock proteins (HSPs) may serve as diagnostic biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but their results are still controversial. This meta-analysis endeavors to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of HSPs both independently and in conjunction with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) as novel biomarkers for HCC detection.
methodsPooled statistical indices, including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were computed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of HSPs, AFP, and their combinations. Additionally, the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC) was determined.
resultsA total of 2013 HCC patients and 1031 control subjects from nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. The summary estimates for HSPs and AFP are as follows: sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.69-0.85) compared to 0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.80); specificity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.81-0.95) compared to 0.86 (95% CI: 0.77-0.91); PLR of 7.4 (95% CI: 3.7-14.9) compared to 5.1 (95% CI: 3.3-8.1); NLR of 0.24 (95% CI: 0.16-0.37) compared to 0.31 (95% CI: 0.24-0.41); DOR of 30.19 (95% CI: 10.68-85.37) compared to 16.34 (95% CI: 9.69-27.56); and AUC of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92) compared to 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.82-0.98), 14.5 (95% CI: 4.6-45.4), 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06-0.20), 133.34 (95% CI: 29.65-599.61), and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98) for the combination of HSPs and AFP.
conclusionOur analysis suggests that HSPs have potential as a biomarker for clinical use in the diagnosis of HCC, and the concurrent utilization of HSPs and AFP shows notable diagnostic effectiveness for HCC.
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.