Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25516467›Full record

SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2016

Serum microRNA-21 as a potential diagnostic biomarker for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shichao Li, Xiaorong Yang, Jinmei Yang, Jiesheng Zhen, Dechun Zhang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. MicroRNA in adenoid cystic carcinoma (Review).International journal of oncology · 2023
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shichao LiDepartment of Pathogenic Biology, Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
Xiaorong YangDepartment of Pathogenic Biology, Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
Jinmei YangDepartment of Pathogenic Biology, Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
Jiesheng ZhenClinical Laboratory, Renmin Hospital of WuHan University, Wuhan, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Dechun ZhangDepartment of Pathogenic Biology, Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China. zhangdechun46@163.com.
Chongqing Medical University · CNWuhan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Serum microRNA-21 (miR-21) expression has been shown to be significantly up-regulated in breast cancer, which implies that it could be a biomarker to discriminate breast cancer patients from healthy controls. We therefore performed this meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic value of miR-21 for breast cancer. Relevant articles were collected from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, BioMed Central, ISI Web of Knowledge, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data and Technology of Chongqing databases, from inception to June 10, 2014 by two independent researchers. Diagnostic capacity of miR-21 for breast cancer was assessed using pooled sensitivity and specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (AUC) and Fagan's nomogram. Meta-Disc software and Stata SE 12.0 were used to investigate the source of heterogeneity and to perform the meta-analysis. We used six studies with a total of 438 patients and 228 healthy controls in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and DOR were 0.79 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.87], 0.85 (95 % CI 0.75-0.91) and 19.46 (95 % CI 8.74-43.30), respectively; positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5 and 0.25, and AUC was 0.89 (95 % CI 0.86-0.91). In addition, heterogeneity was clearly apparent but was not caused by the threshold effect. This meta-analysis suggests that miR-21 is a potential biomarker for early diagnosis of breast cancer with high sensitivity and specificity, and its clinical application warrants further investigation.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansMicroRNAsOdds RatioSensitivity and SpecificityUp-RegulationBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAsMIRN21 microRNA, humanBreast cancerDiagnosisMeta-analysismiR-21

Identifiers

PMID25516467
OpenAlexW2049478386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.