Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28978119›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2017

Systematic literature review and clinical validation of circulating microRNAs as diagnostic biomarkers for colorectal cancer.

Cheng Pan, Xuebing Yan, Hao Li, Linsheng Huang, Mingming Yin, Yongzhi Yang, Renyuan Gao, Leiming Hong, Yanlei Ma, Chenzhang Shi and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. PHLPP2: A Prognostic Biomarker in Adenocarcinoma of the Rectum.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

12 authors.

Cheng Pan *Department of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Xuebing Yan *Department of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Hao Li *Department of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Linsheng Huang *Department of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Mingming YinDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Yongzhi YangDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Renyuan GaoDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Leiming HongDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Yanlei MaDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Chenzhang ShiDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Huanlong QinDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.
Peng ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University No. 301, Shanghai 200072, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are usually diagnosed at an advanced stage and current serum tumor markers have limited diagnostic efficacy, there is an urgent need to identify reliable diagnostic biomarkers. To better define the diagnostic potential of microRNAs (miRNAs) for CRC, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of reported circulating CRC miRNA markers. After a systematic literature review, we selected 30 candidate miRNAs and used quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction to examine their expression in a training cohort of 120 plasma samples (CRC vs healthy controls (HC) = 60:60). Expression data was confirmed in a validation cohort of 160 plasma samples (CRC vs HC = 80:80). We ultimately identified 5 dysregulated circulating miRNAs (miR-15b, miR-17, miR-21, miR-26b, and miR-145), of which miR-21 and miR-26b proved to have the best diagnostic performance in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Based on these results, we propose a novel blood-based diagnostic model, integrating 5 CRC-related miRNAs and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), which provides better diagnostic performance than the combined 5 miRNAs, CEA alone, or any single miRNA. We propose that the novel CRC diagnostic model presented here will be useful for overcoming the limitations faced by current non-invasive diagnostic strategies.

Indexed as

biomarkerscirculating microRNAscolorectal cancerdiagnosis

Identifiers

PMID28978119
PMCPMC5620259

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.