ArticleDiscover oncology2024
Diagnostic value of serum human epididymal secretory protein 4 for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta analysis.
Article in Discover oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- SEOM-GEICO clinical guidelines on endometrial cancer (2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Guideline
- Serum HE4 and polymorphisms in MMP9 and MMP13 associated with survival outcome in patients with endometrial carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study and nomogram development.Future science OA · 2026Article
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
objectiveThe diagnostic value of serum human epididymal secretory protein 4 (HE4) for endometrial cancer (EC) was assessed via evidence-based medicine (EBM) and systematic review (SR) methodologies.
methodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases were searched up to April 1st, 2024, to identify relevant literature. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was utilized to evaluate the quality of the selected studies. The meta-analysis was conducted via RevMan 5.3, STATA 16.1, and Meta-disc software.
resultsA total of 22 studies comprising 9036 cases (3776 cases in the case group and 5260 cases in the control group) were included. The results revealed that HE4 exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.59 [95% CI (0.53, 0.64)], specificity of 0.93 [95% CI (0.88, 0.96)], positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 6.87 [95% CI (4.57, 10.33)], negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.46 [95% CI (0.39, 0.54)], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 14.36 [95% CI (9.37, 21.17)], and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.78 [95% CI (0.75, 0.82)].
conclusionsSerum HE4 demonstrates high specificity and moderate sensitivity for diagnosing EC, thus serving as a valuable biomarker for clinicians either alone or in conjunction with other tumour markers.
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.