ArticleBiomedical reports2016
Meta-analysis of microRNAs as biomarkers for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Article in Biomedical reports, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Urine Cytology for Noninvasive Detection of Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multi-Center Diagnostic Study with Prospective Validation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- MicroRNAs in biofluids are novel tools for bladder cancer screening.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bladder cancer is the most common cancer of the urinary tract. A quarter of bladder cancer patients presenting with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) suffer significant morbidity and succumb to the disease. MicroRNA (miRNA) from tissue, urine or blood samples of MIBC patients have been demonstrated to differ from healthy individuals, and possibly have diagnostic value. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to access the overall diagnostic accuracy comprehensively and quantitatively. Systematic searching in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database was conducted. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated via the random effects model to evaluate the overall test performance. Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test was used to test the publication bias. A total of 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 577 patients and 412 controls. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-0.86] and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81), respectively. The pooled PLR was 2.9 (95% CI, 2.1-3.8), the NLR was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.27-0.35), the DOR was 7 (95% CI, 4-13) and the pooled AUC was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.87). In conclusion, the current miRNA assays support their use as markers for MIBC diagnosis.
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.