Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27655698›Full record

SynthesisOncotarget2016

Diagnostic value of circulating miR-21: An update meta-analysis in various cancers and validation in endometrial cancer.

Yun Gao, Meiyu Dai, Haihua Liu, Wangjiao He, Shengzhang Lin, Tianzhu Yuan, Hong Chen, Shengming Dai

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Circulating MicroRNAs as Cancer Biomarkers in Liquid Biopsies.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yun GaoMedical Science Laboratory, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545005, China.
Meiyu DaiMedical Science Laboratory, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545005, China.
Haihua LiuMedical Science Laboratory, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545005, China.
Wangjiao HeMedical Science Laboratory, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545005, China.
Shengzhang LinMedical Science Laboratory, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545005, China.
Tianzhu YuanDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545005, China.
Hong ChenDepartment of Haematology, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545005, China.
Shengming DaiMedical Science Laboratory, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545005, China.
Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MiR-21 has been identified as one of the most common proto-oncogenes. It is hypothesized that up-regulated miR-21 could be served as a potential biomarker for human cancer diagnosis. However, inconsistencies or discrepancies about diagnostic accuracy of circulating miR-21 still remain. In this sense, miR-21's diagnostic value needs to be fully validated. In this study, we performed an update meta-analysis to estimate the diagnostic value of circulating miR-21 in various human cancers. Additionally, we conducted a validation test on 50 endometrial cancer patients, 50 benign lesion patients and 50 healthy controls. A systematical literature search for relevant articles was performed in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library. A total of 48 studies from 39 articles, involving 3,568 cancer patients and 2,248 controls, were included in this meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) were 0.76 (0.71-0.80), 0.82 (0.79-0.85), 4.3 (3.6-5.1), 0.29 (0.24-0.35), 15 (11-20) and 0.86 (0.83-0.89), respectively. In the validation test, the expression levels of serum miR-21 were significantly higher in benign lesion patients (p = 0.003) and endometrial cancer patients (p = 0.000) compared with that of healthy controls. Endometrial cancer patients showed higher miR-21 expression levels (p = 0.000) compared with benign lesion patients. In conclusion, the meta-analysis shows that circulating miR-21 has excellent performance on the diagnosis for various cancers and the validation test demonstrates that serum miR-21 could be served as a novel biomarker for endometrial carcinoma.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticAlgorithmsArea Under CurveBiomarkers, TumorCase-Control StudiesEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMicroRNAsNeoplasmsOdds RatioQuality ControlSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAsMIRN21 microRNA, humancancersdiagnosisendometrial carcinomameta-analysismiR-21

Identifiers

PMID27655698
PMCPMC5356598
OpenAlexW2519626074

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.