Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2018
Human epididymis protein 4 in endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Li-Man, Zhu Yu-Xuan, Zhong Yi, Su Tao, Fan Xiao-Ming, Xi Qian, Li Ming-Yong, Fu Jun, Tan Hong, Liu Shan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a potential marker for endometrial cancer (EC), however, the diagnostic value of HE4 for EC remains controversial. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of serum HE4 for EC.
METHODS: Literature reports of the diagnostic accuracy of serum HE4 for EC were systematically identified using online data-bases. The meta-analysis was performed using STATA 12.0, Meta-Disc 1.4, and Review Manager 5.2.
RESULTS: A total of 4182 participants and 23 studies were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.56-0.73), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84-0.95), (95% CI: 4.38-12.64), 0.38 (95% CI: 0.31-0.47), 19.46 (95% CI: 11.61-32.62) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81 to 0.87), respectively. Our overall analysis suggested that HE4 is a useful diagnostic marker for EC. Subgroup analysis indicated that studies with benign disease controls showed higher diagnostic accuracies than those with healthy controls.
CONCLUSION: Serum HE4 may serve as a potential biomarker for EC diagnosis. Due to certain limitations, this conclusion should to be cautiously interpreted.
METHODS: Literature reports of the diagnostic accuracy of serum HE4 for EC were systematically identified using online data-bases. The meta-analysis was performed using STATA 12.0, Meta-Disc 1.4, and Review Manager 5.2.
RESULTS: A total of 4182 participants and 23 studies were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.56-0.73), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84-0.95), (95% CI: 4.38-12.64), 0.38 (95% CI: 0.31-0.47), 19.46 (95% CI: 11.61-32.62) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81 to 0.87), respectively. Our overall analysis suggested that HE4 is a useful diagnostic marker for EC. Subgroup analysis indicated that studies with benign disease controls showed higher diagnostic accuracies than those with healthy controls.
CONCLUSION: Serum HE4 may serve as a potential biomarker for EC diagnosis. Due to certain limitations, this conclusion should to be cautiously interpreted.