Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26426883›Full record

SynthesisGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016

Multigene panels in prostate cancer risk assessment: a systematic review.

Julian Little, Brenda Wilson, Ron Carter, Kate Walker, Pasqualina Santaguida, Eva Tomiak, Joseph Beyene, Muhammad Usman Ali, Parminder Raina

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cancer management and research · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Julian LittleSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5026-5531
Brenda WilsonSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ron CarterDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Kate WalkerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Pasqualina SantaguidaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Eva TomiakThe Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Joseph BeyeneDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Muhammad Usman AliDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Parminder RainaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
McMaster University · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSingle-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel tests have been proposed for use in the detection of, and prediction of risk for, prostate cancer and as prognostic indicator in affected men. A systematic review was undertaken to address three research questions to evaluate the analytic validity, clinical validity, clinical utility, and prognostic validity of SNP-based panels.

methodsData sources comprised MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE; these were searched from inception to April 2013. The gray-literature searches included contact with manufacturers. Eligible studies included English-language studies evaluating commercially available SNP panels. Study selection and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers.

resultsTwenty-one studies met eligibility criteria. All focused on clinical validity and evaluated 18 individual panels with 2 to 35 SNPs. All had poor discriminative ability (overall area under receiver-operator characteristic curves, 58-74%; incremental gain resulting from inclusion of SNP data, 2.5-11%) for predicting risk of prostate cancer and/or distinguishing between aggressive and asymptomatic/latent disease. The risk of bias of the studies, as assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools, was moderate.

conclusionThe evidence on currently available SNP panels is insufficient to assess analytic validity, and at best the panels assessed would add a small and clinically unimportant improvement to factors such as age and family history in risk stratification (clinical validity). No evidence on the clinical utility of current panels is available.Genet Med 18 6, 535-544.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorHumansMalePolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID26426883
OpenAlexW2253585993

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.