SynthesisPeerJ2024
Evaluation of Mac-2 binding protein glycosylation isomer (M2BPGi) as a diagnostic marker for staging liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of M2BPGi with Subclinical Atherosclerosis in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease.Metabolites · 2026Article
- Management of MASLD/MASH: challenges, innovations, and the future of patient-centered care in Japan.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- [Clinical practice and challenges from simple models to precise integration for serological evaluation of a non-invasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the accuracy of Mac-2 binding protein glycosylation isomer (M2BPGi) in predicting the stage of liver fibrosis. Methods: Articles published until October 10, 2023, were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver-operator curves (SROC), and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient were used to examine the accuracy of M2BPGi in predicting the stage of liver fibrosis. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was provided for each estimate. Results: Twenty-four studies were included in this meta-analysis, including 3,839 patients with liver fibrosis, 409 of whom progressed to stage 4 or above. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC (AUC) for M2BPGi predicting liver fibrosis ≥F3 were 0.74 (95% CI [0.65-0.82]), 0.84 (95% CI [0.76-0.89]), and 14.99 (95% CI [9.28-24.21]), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for ≥F4 were 0.80 (95% CI [0.70-0.88]), 0.80 (95% CI [0.73-0.86]), and 16.43 (95% CI [0.84-0.90]), respectively. Conclusion: Among different sample partitions, M2BPGi has the best diagnostic performance for liver fibrosis stage ≥4. Furthermore, the cutoff of 1-2 is more accurate than that of 0-1 or 2-3 for fibrosis ≥ F3 and ≥ F4. Registration: CRD42023483260.
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.