ArticleBiomedical reports2018
Abnormally expressed microRNA as auxiliary biomarkers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A meta-analysis.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Small Nucleolar RNAs as Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers in Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Technology in cancer research & treatmentPooled it
- miR-543 promoted the cell proliferation and invasion of nasopharyngeal carcinoma by targeting the JAM-A.Human cell · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aberrant expression of microRNA (miRNA) has been highlighted as a helpful indicator to aid in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) diagnosis. The present meta-analysis aimed to validate the efficacy of miRNA as potential biomarkers for NPC detection. Publication searches were conducted on the online PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception to June 2016. A bivariate meta-analysis was performed to generate the diagnostic parameters based on Meta-Disc 1.4 and Stata 12.0 programs. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression tests were applied to trace heterogeneity sources among eligible studies. A total of six studies comprising 528 patients with NPC and 252 matched controls were enrolled. Results from the present meta-analysis demonstrated that miRNA testing achieved a pooled sensitivity of 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.84] and specificity of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84) in confirming NPC, corresponding to an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.85. Additionally, the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was estimated to be 9.01 (95% CI, 5.62-14.44), along with a positive likelihood ratio of 2.81 (95% CI, 2.19-3.61) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.35 (95% CI, 0.28-0.44). Additionally, the stratified analyses revealed that paralleled testing of miRNA sustained a pooled accuracy superior compared with that of single miRNA testing (sensitivity, 0.88 vs. 0.70; specificity, 0.85 vs. 0.69; AUC, 0.95 vs. 0.75). Testing of miRNA harbors a moderate diagnostic efficacy and is acceptable as an auxiliary biomarker for NPC 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.