Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41158350›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025

Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid, serum carcinoembryonic antigen, and their ratio for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dan-Ni Yang, Yan Niu, Jian-Xun Wen, Li Yan, Ling Hai, Cheng Yan, Hong-Zhe Zhu, Su-Na Cha, Qian Yang, Wei Jiao and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Dan-Ni YangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5378-7578
Yan NiuPublic Service Center for Medical Research, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.
Jian-Xun WenPublic Service Center for Medical Research, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.
Li YanKey Laboratory for Biomarkers, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.
Ling HaiDepartment of Pathology, the College of Basic Medical, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.
Cheng YanDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.
Hong-Zhe ZhuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.
Su-Na ChaDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.
Qian YangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.
Wei JiaoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.
Wen-Qi ZhengDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2970-3768
Zhi-De HuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3679-4992
Mei-Ying WangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Several studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for malignant pleural effusion (MPE). However, it remains unclear whether the diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid CEA is superior to that of serum CEA and pleural fluid to serum CEA ratio (CR). We performed a head-to-head systematic review and meta-analysis to assess their diagnostic accuracy. Methods: We searched the PubMed and Web of Science databases to verify studies that simultaneously investigated the diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid, serum CEA, and CR for MPE. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the revised Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2). A bivariate model was used to pool the sensitivities and specificities of pleural fluid, serum CEA, and CR. We used a summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve to measure their global diagnostic accuracy. The Deeks test was used to estimate publication bias. Results: We included seven studies with 1,148 MPE patients and 816 benign pleural effusion (BPE) patients. The areas under the sROC curve (95% confidence interval) of pleural fluid, serum, and CR were 0.95 (0.93-0.96), 0.84 (0.81-0.87), and 0.90 (0.87-0.93), respectively. No publication bias was observed for pleural fluid CEA and CR, while serum CEA had significant publication bias. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid CEA for MPE is superior to that of serum CEA and CR. Simultaneously testing pleural fluid and serum CEA should not be encouraged.

Indexed as

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)malignant pleural effusion (MPE)meta-analysissensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID41158350
PMCPMC12557693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.