ArticleBiochemia medica2026
The cancer ratio plus in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions: a scoping review of current evidence.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Differentiating between malignant pleural effusion (MPE) and tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) remains challenging in clinical practice. The cancer ratio plus (CR+), a potential diagnostic tool calculated as serum lactate dehydrogenase/(pleural adenosine deaminase x pleural lymphocyte percentage) has emerged to address this diagnostic challenge. This scoping review maps the available evidence on its diagnostic performance. Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception to April 2025. Eligible studies assessed the accuracy of CR+ in distinguishing MPE from TPE. Data on study design, cut-off values, sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and likelihood ratios were extracted and synthesized narratively. Results: Six studies comprising 881 patients were included. Reported cut-off values varied widely (5.7 - 41.0), as did sensitivity (74.3 - 97.6%) and specificity (36.6 - 94.1%). Most studies, however, reported good discriminatory power with AUC values generally above 0.80. The highest diagnostic accuracy was observed in one study, which reported a sensitivity of 97.6%, a specificity of 94.1%, and an AUC of 0.86. Differences in cut-off thresholds, study populations, local tuberculosis epidemiology, and laboratory methodology (particularly lymphocyte quantification) likely contributed to this heterogeneity. Conclusions: The CR+ appears promising as a non-invasive tool using routine parameters for differentiating MPE from TPE, but diagnostic performance varies across settings. The heterogeneity in optimal cut-off values highlights the need for local validation before clinical adoption. Future research should standardize methodology and assess its impact on decision-making and patient outcomes.
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.