↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of two strategies for the interpretation of tumour markers in pleural effusions

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of two strategies for the interpretation of tumour markers in pleural effusions
Published in
Respiratory Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12931-017-0582-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaume Trapé, Francesc Sant, Josefina Franquesa, Jesús Montesinos, Anna Arnau, Maria Sala, Oscar Bernadich, Esperanza Martín, Damià Perich, Concha Pérez, Joan Lopez, Sandra Ros, Enrique Esteve, Rafael Pérez, Jordi Aligué, Gabriel Gurt, Silvia Catot, Montserrat Domenech, Joan Bosch, Josep Miquel Badal, Mariona Bonet, Rafael Molina, Josep Ordeig

Abstract

Pleural effusions present a diagnostic challenge. Approximately 20% are associated with cancer and some 50% require invasive procedures to perform diagnosis. Determination of tumour markers may help to identify patients with malignant effusions. Two strategies are used to obtain high specificity in the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions: a) high cut-off, and b) fluid/serum (F/S) ratio and low cut-off. The aim of this study is to compare these two strategies and to establish whether the identification of possible false positives using benign biomarkers - ADA, CRP and % of polymorphonuclear cells - improves diagnostic accuracy. We studied 402 pleural effusions, 122 of them malignant. Benign biomarkers were determined in pleural fluid, and CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and CA15-3 in pleural fluid and serum. Establishing a cut-off value for each TM for a specificity of 100%, a joint sensitivity of 66.5% was obtained. With the F/S strategy and low cut-off points, sensitivity was 77% and specificity 98.2%, Subclassifying cases with negative benign biomarkers, both strategies achieved a specificity of 100%; sensitivity was 69.9% for single determination and 80.6% for F/S ratio. The best interpretation of TM in the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions is obtained using the F/S ratio in the group with negative benign biomarkers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 25%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,882,997
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#839
of 3,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,093
of 327,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#33
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,064 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.