SynthesisPloS one2011
Is high resolution melting analysis (HRMA) accurate for detection of human disease-associated mutations? A meta analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- High-resolution melting analysis in veterinary medicine: a systematic review of applications and diagnostic accuracy.Tropical animal health and production · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution melting curve analysis for discrimination of oncology-associatedThe Journal of international medical research · 2025Pooled it
- High resolution melting assay as a reliable method for diagnosing drug-resistant TB cases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of high resolution melting analysis for detection of KRAS mutations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2014Pooled it
- High-resolution melting analysis for accurate detection of BRAF mutations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2014Pooled it
- A rapid, accessible real-time PCR approach to identify UBA1 somatic mutations in VEXAS syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring the impact of SNPs rs2476601, rs2488457, and rs33996649 onFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Genotyping and Multivariate Regression Trees Reveal Ecological Diversification within the Microcystis aeruginosa Complex along a Wide Environmental Gradient.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2022Article
- Surveillance of Plasmodium falciparum pfcrt haplotypes in southwestern uganda by high-resolution melt analysis.Malaria journal · 2021Article
- Identification and differentiation ofVeterinary world · 2020Article
- Cytologic and Molecular Diagnostics for Vitreoretinal Lymphoma: Current Approaches and Emerging Single-Cell Analyses.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Review
- Genetic species identification of ecologically important planthoppers (Prokelisia spp.) of coastal Spartina saltmarshes using High Resolution Melting Analysis (HRMA).Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Article
- Pilot investigation of the mutation profile of PIK3CA/PTEN genes (PI3K pathway) in grade 3 endometrial cancer.Oncology reports · 2019Article
- C1019T Polymorphism in the Connexin 37 Gene and Myocardial Infarction Risk in Premature Coronary Artery Disease.The journal of Tehran Heart Center · 2017Article
- Rapid detection of functional gene polymorphisms of TLRs and IL-17 using high resolution melting analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Scanning for α-Hemoglobin Variants by High-Resolution Melting Analysis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2016Article
- Comparison of multiple genotyping methods for the identification of the cancer predisposing founder mutation p.R337H in TP53.Genetics and molecular biology · 2016Article
- Differentiation of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli Using Multiplex-PCR and High Resolution Melt Curve Analysis.PloS one · 2015Article
- Performance of a real-time PCR assay for the rapid identification of Mycobacterium species.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh Resolution Melting Analysis (HRMA) is becoming the preferred method for mutation detection. However, its accuracy in the individual clinical diagnostic setting is variable. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of HRMA for human mutations in comparison to DNA sequencing in different routine clinical settings, we have conducted a meta-analysis of published reports. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsOut of 195 publications obtained from the initial search criteria, thirty-four studies assessing the accuracy of HRMA were included in the meta-analysis. We found that HRMA was a highly sensitive test for detecting disease-associated mutations in humans. Overall, the summary sensitivity was 97.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 96.8-98.5; I(2) = 27.0%). Subgroup analysis showed even higher sensitivity for non-HR-1 instruments (sensitivity 98.7% (95%CI: 97.7-99.3; I(2) = 0.0%)) and an eligible sample size subgroup (sensitivity 99.3% (95%CI: 98.1-99.8; I(2) = 0.0%)). HRMA specificity showed considerable heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity of the techniques was influenced by sample size and instrument type but by not sample source or dye type. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These findings show that HRMA is a highly sensitive, simple and low-cost test to detect human disease-associated mutations, especially for samples with mutations of low incidence. The burden on DNA sequencing could be significantly reduced by the implementation of HRMA, but it should be recognized that its sensitivity varies according to the number of samples with/without mutations, and positive results require DNA sequencing for confirmation.
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.