Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24852453›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2014

Diagnostic ability of %p2PSA and prostate health index for aggressive prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

Wenying Wang, Meilin Wang, Li Wang, Tamara S Adams, Ye Tian, Jianfeng Xu

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

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Prostate cancer biomarkers: from early diagnosis to precision treatment.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Beyond PSA: The Role of Prostate Health Index (phi).International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Wenying Wang1] Department of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China [2] Center for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA [3].
Meilin Wang1] Center for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA [2].
Li WangCenter for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA.
Tamara S AdamsCenter for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA.
Ye TianDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100050, China.
Jianfeng XuCenter for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA.
Wake Forest University · USBeijing Friendship Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of [-2]proPSA (p2PSA) based diagnostic tests for the detection of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) has not been fully evaluated. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of p2PSA/free PSA (%p2PSA) and prostate health index (Phi) tests for PCa and to evaluate their ability in discriminating between aggressive and non-aggressive PCa. A total of 16 articles were included in this meta-analysis. For the detection of PCa, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84-0.87), 0.40 (95% CI, 0.39-042) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.77) for %p2PSA respectively, and were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.86), 0.45 (95% CI, 0.44-0.47) and 0.70 (95% CI=0.65-0.74) for Phi, respectively. In addition, the sensitivity for discriminating PCa between higher Gleason score (≥7) and lower Gleason score (<7) was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.92) for %p2PSA and Phi respectively, and the specificity was low, only 0.09 (95% CI, 0.06-0.12) and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.14-0.19) for %p2PSA and Phi, respectively. Phi and %p2PSA have a high diagnostic accuracy rates and can be used in PCa diagnosis. Phi and %p2PSA may be useful as tumor markers in predicating patients harboring more aggressive disease and guiding biopsy decisions.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexBiomarkers, TumorCase-Control StudiesHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsProtein IsoformsROC CurveBiomarkers, TumorProstate-Specific AntigenProtein Isoforms

Identifiers

PMID24852453
PMCPMC5381367
OpenAlexW1978111804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.