SynthesisMedicine2015
Diagnostic Value of MicroRNAs for Urologic Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urinary MicroRNAs as Potential Markers for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- MicroRNA-21 and microRNA-30c as diagnostic biomarkers for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Clinical value and potential pathways of miR-183-5p in bladder cancer: A study based on miRNA-seq data and bioinformatics analysis.Oncology letters · 2018Article
- Article
- Novel biomarkers for the detection of prostate cancer.Journal of clinical urology · 2016Article
- Computational identification of microRNAs associated to both epithelial to mesenchymal transition and NGAL/MMP-9 pathways in bladder cancer.Oncotarget · 2016Article
- Comprehensive investigation of aberrant microRNA profiling in bladder cancer tissues.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MicroRNAs (miRNAs), particularly those extracted from the blood or tissues, have become the focus of urologic cancers research. However, the literature reviews on the accuracy of miRNA detection in urologic cancers have been inconsistent, leading us to perform this meta-analysis. Eligible studies were searched in PubMed and other databases. To calculate the pooled detection accuracy estimates, we used a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis model. According to the exclusion and inclusion criteria, 41 studies were included. Overall, the results showed sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74-0.80) and specificity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72-0.79), with an area under the SROC curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86). In addition, further subgroup analyses were also conducted. Firstly, the multiple miRNAs subgroup has significantly better diagnostic specificity than single miRNA subgroup among all these cancer types, while only bladder cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC) group with significantly greater diagnostic sensitivity with their multiple miRNA detection. Secondly, none of these cancer types showed significant differences on diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in their specimen and sample size subgroups. Thirdly, the diagnostic sensitivity between Asian (0.791, 95% CI: 0.748-0.827) and Caucasian (0.713, 95% CI: 0.666-0.756) in BC type was shown significant different with the P-value of 0.011. The results of our study suggested that miRNAs, particularly the multiple miRNAs, may play an important role in diagnosis and monitoring of the urologic cancers as superior biomarkers.
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.