ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Diagnostic value of IMP3 in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2016-06-01Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Third Party · Plagiarism of Data · Plagiarism of Text ·
- Retracted
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAn increasing number of studies have examined the ability of IMP3 (insulin-like growth factor 2 messenger RNA binding protein 3) to be a marker for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PCa). The exact role of IMP3 needs to be elucidated. The aim of this study is to determine the overall accuracy of IMP3 in PCa through a meta-analysis of published studies. MATERIALS AND
methodsPublications addressing the accuracy of IMP3 in the diagnosis of PCa were selected from Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and The Chinese Journals Full-text Database (CNKI). The following indexes of test accuracy were computed for each study: sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The diagnostic threshold identified for each study was used to plot a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Statistical analysis was performed by Meta-Disc 1.4 and STATA 12.0 software.
results10 studies met the inclusion criteria. The summary estimates for IMP3 in the diagnosis of PCa were: sensitivity 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.85), specificity 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) 15.04 (95% CI, 1.83-123.26), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) 0.21 (95% CI, 0.10-0.46) and diagnostic odds ratio 70.10 (95% CI, 16.74-293.56). The SROC curve indicated that the maximum joint sensitivity and specificity (Q-value) was 0.87; the area under the curve was 0.94.
conclusionOur findings suggest that IMP3 may be a useful diagnostic adjunctive tool for confirming PCa. However, further large scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26379850PMC4565233What 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.