Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29568407›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2018

MiR-486 as an effective biomarker in cancer diagnosis and prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Min Jiang, Xuelian Li, Xiaowei Quan, Xianglin Yang, Chang Zheng, Xia Hao, Ruoyi Qu, Baosen Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Insulin Resistance and Cancer: In Search for a Causal Link.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Frontiers of MicroRNA Signature in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Min JiangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xuelian LiDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xiaowei QuanDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xianglin YangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Chang ZhengDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xia HaoDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Ruoyi QuDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Baosen ZhouDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMiR-486 was found to be associated with cancer's diagnosis and prognosis. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the potential effect of miR-486 on cancer detection and prognosis. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases to find all correlated articles. The STATA 11.0 was applied to estimate the pooled effects, heterogeneity and publication bias.

resultsThe pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE) and Area under the curve (AUC) were 82% (95% CI: 78-85%), 88% (95% CI: 83-92%) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93). Subgroup analysis indicated miR-486 from circulating samples exhibited higher diagnostic accuracy with the AUC was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92) than miR-486 from other specimen with the AUC of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.82) and miR-486 obtained a better diagnostic value in the Asian population with the AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95) than the Caucasian and Caucasian/African population with the AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76-0.83) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91) respectively. MiR-486 obtained high value for the diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer with SEN, SPE and AUC were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.0.77-0.87), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.84-0.94) as well as 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94) respectively. For the 7 prognostic tests, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) was 0.48 (95% CI: -0.13-1.08) for low versus high miR-486 expression.

conclusionsThis meta-analysis indicated that miR-486 can be used as ideal biomarkers in the cancer's diagnosis. However, Low miR-486 expression did not increase the risk of poor outcome.

Indexed as

cancerdiagnosticmeta-analysismiR-486prognosis

Identifiers

PMID29568407
PMCPMC5862628

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.