SynthesisPloS one2016
Rapid Discrimination of Malignant Breast Lesions from Normal Tissues Utilizing Raman Spectroscopy System: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of Raman spectroscopy in discrimination of nasopharyngeal carcinoma from normal samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Morpho-molecular signal correlation between optical coherence tomography and Raman spectroscopy for superior image interpretation and clinical diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A Systematic Approach to Review ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- Use of a handheld terahertz pulsed imaging device to differentiate benign and malignant breast tissue.Biomedical optics express · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Raman spectroscopy system in the detection of malignant breast lesions through a systemic review and meta-analysis of published studies.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed and Embase from 2000 to June 2015. Published studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of Raman spectroscopy in distinguishing malignant breast lesions from benign lesions and normal tissues were included in our study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and the area under the curve of summary receiver-operating characteristic curves was derived. A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines was used to assess the quality of included studies.
resultsThe initial search produced a total of 157 articles after removing duplicates. Nine studies (8 in vitro and 1 in vivo) were eligible in this meta-analysis. We analyzed the eight in vitro studies with 1756 lesions, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of Raman spectroscopy system for the diagnosis of malignant breast lesions were 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.96) and 0.97 (97% CI 0.93-0.98), respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio was 266.70 (95% CI 89.38-795.79), and the area under the curve of summary receiver-operating characteristic curves was 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99). Significant heterogeneity was found between studies. There was no evidence of considerable publication bias.
conclusionsRaman spectroscopy system is an optical diagnostic technology with great value for detecting malignant breast lesions. At the same time, it has advantages of being non-invasive, real-time, and easy to use. Thus it deserves to be further explored for intra-operatory breast tumor margin detection.
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.