ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Predictive value of microRNAs as novel biomarkers in detection of lymphoma.
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. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have attracted many attentions in lymphoma diagnostic research. The inconsistence of diagnostic performance in these existed literatures leading us to conduct this meta-analysis. In order to have a scientific and reliable study, all related articles were screened from Medline, Embase, CNKI and other databases. The sensitivity and specificity of each involved research were used to plot the summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve and calculate the area under the curve (AUC). The QUADAS-2 tool was applied to estimate the quality of included studies. In addition, Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test was performed to estimate publication bias. Overall, 14 studies from 6 articles were included to evaluate the whole test performance. The overall pooled results were as follows: sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-0.95), specificity was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75-0.90), the AUC was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95), positive likelihood ratio-PLR was 5.5 (95% CI: 3.5-8.8), negative likelihood ratio-NLR was 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06-0.21), and diagnostic odds ratio-DOR was 50 (95% CI: 19-128). In summary, results from meta-analysis showed that miRNAs analysis might significantly increase the diagnostic accuracy of lymphoma. Further massive prospective studies still needed to validate our conclusion before clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26550438PMC4613123What 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.