ArticleBMC rheumatology2026
Tumor markers in rheumatoid arthritis -associated interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMC rheumatology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInterstitial lung disease (ILD) is a serious extra-articular complication of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a leading cause of mortality. This meta-analysis aims to comprehensively evaluate the diagnostic utility and clinical relevance of tumor-associated biomarkers in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease (RA-ILD).
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CBM, Wan-Fang, and CNKI databases from inception to April 1, 2025. We included case-control and cohort studies that compared tumor marker levels between RA-ILD and RA-non-ILD patients, following the PICOS framework. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pooled effect sizes were calculated as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
resultsThirty-six studies comprising 7300 RA patients were included. Compared to RA-non-ILD patients, those with RA-ILD showed significantly elevated levels of CA125 (SMD = 1.10, 95%CI 0.47-1.72), CA199 (SMD = 0.90, 95%CI 0.56-1.23), CA153 (SMD = 1.70, 95%CI 1.16-2.23), CEA (SMD = 0.58, 95%CI 0.24-0.92), KL-6 (SMD = 1.68, 95%CI 1.22-2.14), NSE (SMD = 0.32, 95%CI 0.16-0.48), and HE4 (SMD = 1.87, 95%CI 1.60-2.14). After adjustment for publication bias using trim-and-fill analysis, CYFRA21-1 was also significantly elevated (SMD = 0.48, 95%CI 0.06-0.89). For distinguishing RA-ILD, KL-6 demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.964), followed by CYFRA21-1 (AUC = 0.906).
conclusionOur findings, which are primarily based on evidence from Chinese cohorts, support the utility of CA125, CA199, CA153, CEA, KL-6, NSE, HE4, and CYFRA21-1 as biomarkers for RA-ILD. The superior diagnostic performance of KL-6 and CYFRA21-1 suggests their potential clinical utility as part of a multi-marker panel discriminating RA-ILD from RA-non-ILD and risk stratification, offering a complementary approach to imaging for identifying this high-risk RA complication. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42022362487.
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.