SynthesisMedicine2016
The Diagnostic Performance of Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Performance of IntestinalChinese medical journal · 2018Pooled it
- The importance of stool DNA methylation in colorectal cancer diagnosis: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- TH1L involvement in colorectal cancer pathogenesis by regulation of CCL20 through the NF-κB signalling pathway.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2024Article
- Molecular methods for colorectal cancer screening: Progress with next-generation sequencing evolution.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- Article
- Novel Diagnostic Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- A Novel Stool Methylation Test for the Non-Invasive Screening of Gastric and Colorectal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Microbiome Analysis of More Than 2,000 NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Samples Shows the Potential to Improve Screening Accuracy.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Stool Tests for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Cell-free DNA testing: future applications in gastroenterology and hepatology.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2019Review
- BMP3 promoter hypermethylation in plasma-derived cell-free DNA in colorectal cancer patients.Genes & genomics · 2018Article
- Non-blood circulating tumor DNA detection in cancer.Oncotarget · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of stool DNA testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) and compare the performance between single-gene and multiple-gene tests.MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using keywords colorectal cancers, stool/fecal, sensitivity, specificity, DNA, and screening. Sensitivity analysis, quality assessments, and performance bias were performed for the included studies.Fifty-three studies were included in the analysis with a total sample size of 7524 patients. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to the genes being analyzed for fecal genetic biomarkers of CRC, as well as the laboratory methods being used for each assay. The sensitivity of the different assays ranged from 2% to 100% and the specificity ranged from 81% to 100%. The meta-analysis found that the pooled sensitivities for single- and multigene assays were 48.0% and 77.8%, respectively, while the pooled specificities were 97.0% and 92.7%. Receiver operator curves and diagnostic odds ratios showed no significant difference between both tests with regard to sensitivity or specificity.This meta-analysis revealed that using assays that evaluated multiple genes compared with single-gene assays did not increase the sensitivity or specificity of stool DNA testing in detecting CRC.
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.