4.5 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of serum glypican-3 for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 196-200

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.12.007

关键词

Glypican-3; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Diagnostic value; Systematic review

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81201265]
  2. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation, China [ZR2010HQ027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Many individual studies have evaluated the diagnostic efficiency of serum glypican-3 (GPC-3) for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the results have been inconsistent. The aim of present study was to meta-analyze the overall diagnostic accuracy of serum GPC-3 for diagnosing HCC. Design and methods: English language studies which evaluated the diagnostic performance of GPC-3 and published before March 22, 2013 were retrieved. The quality of the studies was assessed by revised QUADAS tools. The performance characteristics were pooled and determined by random-effects models. Results: Twelve studies with a total of 898 HCC patients and 835 non-HCC patients were included. For the studies in which the majority of reference participants had HBV or HCV infections, the overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.49-0.57) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74-0.81), respectively. The area under summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves (AUC) was 0.82. The major design deficiencies of included studies were differential verification bias, and a lack of clear exclusion and inclusion criteria. Conclusions: GPC-3 has moderate diagnostic accuracy for HCC. Due to the design limitations, results in published studies should be carefully interpreted. In addition, more well-designed studies with large sample sizes should be performed to rigorously evaluate the diagnostic value of the GPC-3. (C) 2014 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据