ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2015
Circulating VEGF as a biomarker for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of exercise on angiogenesis biomarkers in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic biomarkers in ovarian cancer: advances beyond CA125 and HE4.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Review
- Future theranostic strategies: emerging ovarian cancer biomarkers to bridge the gap between diagnosis and treatment.Frontiers in drug delivery · 2024Review
- Study of Three Potential Diagnostic Biomarkers in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Samples from Guilan, North of Iran.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
VEGF is a frequently studied angiogenic factor in ovarian cancer (OC), and is considered to have an important role in the progression of OC. However, its diagnostic value has not been widely accepted because the conclusions are inconsistent and even conflicting. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic value of VEGF in OC. A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WANFANG databases for relevant published articles (the last search update was November 18, 2014). The diagnosis sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were pooled by Meta DiSc 1.4 software. A total of ten studies with 1,131 subjects were finally included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.67 (0.63-0.73), 0.78 (0.75-0.81), 3.08 (6.36-12.22), 0.39 (0.29-0.51), 9.10 (5.43-45.25), and 0.8175, respectively. Furthermore, to explore the sources of heterogeneity, we conducted subgroup analyses based on ethnicity and sample size. The diagnostic accuracy of VEGF was higher in an Asian population than in a Caucasian population. A similar finding was found in subgroups with the smaller sample size (<100 subjects). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that VEGF has moderate diagnostic accuracy for OC. Considering our limitations and the heterogeneity among our selected studies, larger, well-designed prospective and multicenter validation studies are needed to evaluate the diagnostic value of serum VEGF for OC.
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.