SynthesisPathology oncology research : POR2016
Diagnostic Accuracy of BRAF Immunohistochemistry in Colorectal Cancer: a Meta-Analysis and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review.
Synthesis in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proficiency test of BRAF immunohistochemistry as a surrogate marker of p.V600E mutation: Assessment of staining and interpretation quality in Taiwan.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Tumor-Type Agnostic, Targeted Therapies: BRAF Inhibitors Join the Group.Acta medica academica · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance between the BRAF (V600E) mutation test and immunohistochemistry (IHC) and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of BRAF IHC for colorectal cancer (CRC) through a systematic review, meta-analysis, and diagnostic test accuracy review. The current study included 1021 CRCs from eight eligible studies. The concordance rates were investigated between BRAF IHC and the mutation test. In addition, diagnostic test accuracy review was conducted and calculated using the value of area under curve (AUC) on the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. The positive rate of BRAF IHC was 30.5 % (range; 13.2-66.2 %), and the BRAF mutation was found in 30.2 % (range; 11.7-66.2 %). The overall concordance rate between BRAF IHC and the mutation test was 0.944 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.873-0.977). In the BRAF IHC-positive and -negative groups, the concordance rates between BRAF IHC and the mutation test were 0.895 (95 % CI 0.800-0.945) and 0.956 (95 % CI 0.878-0.985), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 (95 % CI 0.91-0.96) and 0.96 (95 % CI 0.95-0.98), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was 272.86 (95 % CI 46.11-1614.88), and the value of AUC on SROC curve was 0.9846. Taken together, our results suggest that BRAF IHC is strongly concordant with the BRAF mutation test and has high diagnostic accuracy in BRAF mutation analysis of CRCs. Further cumulative studies on detailed evaluation criteria are needed before application in daily practice.
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.