Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27158984›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Diagnostic Performance of DNA Hypermethylation Markers in Peripheral Blood for the Detection of Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Bingsheng Li, Aihua Gan, Xiaolong Chen, Xinying Wang, Weifeng He, Xiaohui Zhang, Renxiang Huang, Shuzhu Zhou, Xiaoxiao Song, Angao Xu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic Value and Clinical Significance of Methylated SEPT9 for Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Cancers · 2019
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Bingsheng LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Huizhou First Hospital, Huizhou, 516003, China.
Aihua GanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Huizhou First Hospital, Huizhou, 516003, China.
Xiaolong ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hainan provincial people's Hospital, Haikuo, 570100, China.
Xinying WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China.
Weifeng HeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Huizhou First Hospital, Huizhou, 516003, China.
Xiaohui ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Huizhou First Hospital, Huizhou, 516003, China.
Renxiang HuangHuizhou Medicine Institute, Huizhou First Hospital, Huizhou, 516003, China.
Shuzhu ZhouHuizhou Medicine Institute, Huizhou First Hospital, Huizhou, 516003, China.
Xiaoxiao SongSchool of Public Health, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650500, China.
Angao XuHuizhou Medicine Institute, Huizhou First Hospital, Huizhou, 516003, China.
Huizhou Central People's Hospital · CNHuizhou University · CNKunming Medical University · CNNanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA hypermethylation in blood is becoming an attractive candidate marker for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of blood hypermethylation markers for CRC in different clinical settings, we conducted a meta-analysis of published reports. Of 485 publications obtained in the initial literature search, 39 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Hypermethylation markers in peripheral blood showed a high degree of accuracy for the detection of CRC. The summary sensitivity was 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-0.67] and specificity was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93). Subgroup analysis showed significantly greater sensitivity for the methylated Septin 9 gene (SEPT9) subgroup (0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.81) than for the non-methylated SEPT9 subgroup (0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.64). Sensitivity and specificity were not affected significantly by target gene number, CRC staging, study region, or methylation analysis method. These findings show that hypermethylation markers in blood are highly sensitive and specific for CRC detection, with methylated SEPT9 being particularly robust. The diagnostic performance of hypermethylation markers, which have varied across different studies, can be improved by marker optimization. Future research should examine variation in diagnostic accuracy according to non-neoplastic factors.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationBiomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsHumansSensitivity and SpecificitySeptinsBiomarkers, TumorSEPTIN9 protein, humanSeptins

Identifiers

PMID27158984
PMCPMC4861294
OpenAlexW2346939081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.