SynthesisPloS one2014
Diagnostic value of mutation-specific antibodies for immunohistochemical detection of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer diagnostics based on plasma protein biomarkers: hard times but great expectations.Molecular oncology · 2021Review
- Detection of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung adenocarcinoma cytological specimens by immunocytochemistry.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2017Article
- Immunohistochemistry for predictive biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2017Review
- Prognostic implications of immunohistochemistry markers for EGFR-TKI therapy in Chinese patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma harboring EGFR mutations.OncoTargets and therapy · 2016Article
- Diagnostic value of SHOX2 DNA methylation in lung cancer: a meta-analysis.OncoTargets and therapy · 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
backgroundVarious studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of EGFR mutation-specific antibodies in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a meta-analysis of existing data to investigate the diagnostic value of mutation-specific antibodies for detection of EGFR mutations in NSCLC.
methodsWe systematically retrieved relevant studies from PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar. Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted for further exploration of heterogeneity, including calculation of the average sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and analysis of SROC(summary receiver operating characteristic) curves.
resultsFifteen studies met our inclusion criteria. A summary of the meta-analysis of the efficacy of the anti-E746-A750 antibody was as follows: sensitivity, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.55-0.64); specificity, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.98); PLR, 33.50 (95% CI, 13.96-80.39); NLR, 0.39 (95% CI, 0.30-0.51) and DOR, 111.17 (95% CI, 62.22-198.63). A similar meta-analysis was performed for the anti-L858R antibody with results as follows: sensitivity, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79); specificity, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.97); PLR, 24.42 (95% CI, 11.66-51.17); NLR, 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.39) and DOR, 126.66 (95% CI, 54.60-293.82).
conclusionImmunohistochemistry alone is sufficient for the detection of EGFR mutations if the result is positive. Molecular-based analyses are necessary only if the anti-E746-A750 antibody results are negative. Immunohistochemistry seems more suitable for clinical screening for EGFR mutations prior to molecular-based analysis.
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.