ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Pleural fluid human epididymis secretory protein 4 in differentiating between malignant and benign pleural effusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Soluble biomarkers in pleural fluid are a promising diagnostic tool for malignant pleural effusion (MPE) due to their advantages of low cost, short turnaround time, and less invasiveness. Several studies have investigated the value of pleural fluid human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4) in detecting MPE, but the results varied. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the value of pleural fluid HE4 in differentiating between MPE and benign pleural effusion (BPE). Methods: The PubMed and Web of Science databases were used to identify eligible studies regarding the diagnostic value of pleural fluid HE4 for MPE and published before May 1, 2025. We extracted the following information from all eligible studies: first author, country, sample sizes of MPE and BPE, publication year, study design (e.g., prospective, retrospective), HE4 assay, the definition for MPE, the area under the curve (AUC) of HE4, sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding threshold. We used the revised Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) to assess the risk of bias in eligible studies. The bivariate model was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity. The summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was constructed to estimate the value of HE4 for differentiating between MPE and BPE. Deeks's test was employed to assess the risk of publication bias. Results: Seven studies with 1,216 patients (592 MPEs and 624 BPEs) were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed HE4 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.74] and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.82-0.98). HE4 had an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86). No significant publication bias across the included studies was observed. The primary risk of bias was the representativeness of the cohort, data-driven threshold selection, and particle verification bias. Conclusions: Pleural fluid HE4 has a moderate value for differentiating between MPE and BPE. However, it cannot be used to confirm or rule out MPE when used alone.
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.