SynthesisTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2014
Diagnostic performance of microRNAs expression in prostate cancer.
Synthesis in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Circulating microRNAs as novel biomarkers in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2016Pooled it
- Clinical Diagnostic Implications of Body Fluid MiRNA in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Differential blood-based diagnosis between benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer: miRNA as source for biomarkers independent of PSA level, Gleason score, or TNM status.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016Trial
- MicroRNA-21 and microRNA-30c as diagnostic biomarkers for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have been proposed as ideal diagnostic indicators of prostate cancer (CaP). However, previous studies have reported conflicting results. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the potential diagnostic value of miRNAs for CaP. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and other databases. Results from different studies were pooled using random effects models. The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the overall test performance. Between-study heterogeneity was tested using the chi-squared test and the I (2) test. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity. Fifty-eight studies from ten articles, including 669 patients with CaP and 404 controls composed of healthy individuals and patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled SEN and SPE were 0.74 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.78) and 0.73 (95 % CI 0.70-0.76), respectively. The pooled PLR was 2.7 (95 % CI 2.4-3.1); NLR was 0.35 (95 % CI 0.30-0.42); and DOR was 8 (95 % CI 6-10). The pooled AUC was 0.79 (95 % CI 0.76-0.83). Subgroup analyses indicated that multiple miRNAs yielded a better diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review suggests that miRNA analysis can significantly improve the overall accuracy of CaP diagnosis. Moreover, using multiple miRNA-based assays could achieve significantly higher accuracy in diagnosing CaP than single miRNA-based assays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25060180What 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.