ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Diagnostic value of pleural fluid neuron-specific enolase for malignant pleural effusion.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) in pleural fluid has been proposed as a promising diagnostic biomarker. However, existing studies on the diagnostic accuracy of NSE have reported inconsistent results. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of NSE in differentiating malignant pleural effusion (MPE) from benign pleural effusion (BPE) and investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in the diagnostic performance of NSE reported in previous studies. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with undiagnosed pleural effusion from two centers in China (Hohhot and Changshu) and blindly measured their pleural fluid NSE level using an electrochemiluminescence assay. The diagnostic accuracy of NSE was assessed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and decision curve analysis (DCA). We used the published studies to analyze the association between the prevalence of heart failure (HF) in the studied cohort and the diagnostic accuracy of NSE. Results: The Hohhot center enrolled 153 patients (66 MPEs, 87 BPEs), and the Changshu center enrolled 58 patients (26 MPEs, 32 BPEs). MPE patients exhibited significantly higher levels of NSE compared to BPE patients in the Hohhot cohort. The areas under the curve (AUCs) for NSE were 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-0.77] for the Hohhot cohort and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.51-0.79) for the Changshu cohort. The sensitivity and specificity of NSE in the Hohhot cohort were 0.50 (95% CI: 0.38-0.62) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.86), respectively, at the 13.92 ng/mL threshold. In the Changshu cohort, the sensitivity and specificity of NSE were 0.42 (95% CI: 0.26-0.61) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.68-0.93), respectively, at the 62.50 ng/mL threshold. The DCA of NSE was near the reference lines in both cohorts. HF prevalence was positively correlated with AUC in published studies. Conclusions: The current evidence does not support that NSE serves as a useful diagnostic marker for MPE. The prevalence of HF patients in the studied cohort affects the diagnostic accuracy of NSE.
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.