Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22712526›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2012

Does risk for ovarian malignancy algorithm excel human epididymis protein 4 and CA125 in predicting epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis.

Fake Li, Ruxiu Tie, Kai Chang, Feng Wang, Shaoli Deng, Weiping Lu, Lili Yu, Ming Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic value ofFrontiers in oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Diagnostic biomarkers in ovarian cancer: advances beyond CA125 and HE4.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Diagnostics of Ovarian Tumors in Postmenopausal Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fake LiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Institute of Surgery Research, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, ChongQing, Peoples Republic of China.
Ruxiu Tie
Kai Chang
Feng Wang
Shaoli Deng
Weiping Lu
Lili Yu
Ming Chen
Army Medical University · CNDaping Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundsRisk for Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) appear to be promising predictors for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), however, conflicting results exist in the diagnostic performance comparison among ROMA, HE4 and CA125.

methodsRemote databases (MEDLINE/PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov) and full texts bibliography were searched for relevant abstracts. All studies included were closely assessed with the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). EOC predictive value of ROMA was systematically evaluated, and comparison among the predictive performances of ROMA, HE4 and CA125 were conducted within the same population. Sensitivity, specificity, DOR (diagnostic odds ratio), LR ± (positive and negative likelihood ratio) and AUC (area under receiver operating characteristic-curve) were summarized with a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to explore the heterogeneity.

resultsData of 7792 tests were retrieved from 11 studies. The overall estimates of ROMA for EOC predicting were: sensitivity (0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.93), specificity (0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.88), and AUC (0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.95). Comparison of EOC predictive value between HE4 and CA125 found, specificity: HE4 (0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.96) > CA125 (0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.90); AUC: CA125 (0.88, 95% CI 0.85-0.91) > HE4 (0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.85). Comparison of OC predictive value between HE4 and CA125 found, AUC: CA125 (0.89, 95% CI 0.85-0.91) > HE4 (0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.83). Comparison among the three tests for EOC prediction found, sensitivity: ROMA (0.86, 95%CI 0.81-0.91) > HE4 (0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.85); specificity: HE4 (0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.96) > ROMA (0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.88) > CA125 (0.78, 95%CI 0.73-0.83).

conclusionsROMA is helpful for distinguishing epithelial ovarian cancer from benign pelvic mass. HE4 is not better than CA125 either for EOC or OC prediction. ROMA is promising predictors of epithelial ovarian cancer to replace CA125, but its utilization requires further exploration.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFemaleHumansNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialOvarian NeoplasmsPrognosisProteinsQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveWAP Four-Disulfide Core Domain Protein 2Biomarkers, TumorCA-125 AntigenProteinsWAP Four-Disulfide Core Domain Protein 2WFDC2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID22712526
PMCPMC3443004
OpenAlexW2080203245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.