ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2024
Diagnostic Value of Serum KL-6 in Interstitial Lung Diseases.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor markers in rheumatoid arthritis -associated interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC rheumatology · 2026Article
- New Therapies for Sarcoidosis: Molecular and Pathophysiological Basis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Geospatial and temporal trends of interstitial lung disease subtypes and KL-6 biomarker in China: a nationwide study (2016-2024).Respiratory research · 2026Article
- The emerging roles of microRNAs in pneumoconiosis: pathogenic mechanisms and clinical implications.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Toxicity of BEP chemotherapy in germ cell tumors: focus on immune-mediated bleomycin pulmonary toxicity in comparison with EP and VIP regimens.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Krebs von den Lungen-6 as a potent indicator of the frequency of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore serum KL-6 level and investigate its diagnostic value in interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Methods: Serum KL-6 level was measured using the chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay. Statistical analysis was performed for determining the KL-6 concentration of each group. Results: KL-6 level (U/mL) in the ILD group was 1388.321 ±1943.116, which was higher than that in the control group, showing a significant statistical difference. ROC curve analysis based on the receiver operating characteristic curve showed the optimal cut-off value of 402.5U/mL, sensitivity of 77.4%, specificity of 93.4%, and accuracy of 89.4%; through Chi-square test with the two groups, the positive rate of KL-6 in patients with ILD was proved to be significantly higher than that in the control group. KL-6 level was 1063.00±504.757 in the idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) group, 1346.892 ±1827.252 in the connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD) group, 467.889±288.859 in the organizing pneumonia (OP) group, 8252.333±6050.625 in the pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (PAP) group, and 359.200±392.707 in the sarcoidosis group. The rank sum test showed that the differences were statistically significant. KL-6 level was the lowest in the sarcoidosis group, followed by that in the OP group. Conclusion: Serum KL-6 level was confirmed to be highly sensitive, specific, and accurate in the diagnosis of ILD. Subgroup analysis showed that the KL-6 level was the lowest in the sarcoidosis group, followed by that in the OP group.
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.