SynthesisWorld journal of urology2018
Diagnostic value of urinary survivin as a biomarker for bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of molecular signatures in the urinary bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinomas: a prospective controlled clinical study.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2022Trial
- Advances in Diagnosis and Therapy for Bladder Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
- Article
- Diagnostic and prognostic role of BTA, NMP22, survivin and cytology in urothelial carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
- Trends in urine biomarker discovery for urothelial bladder cancer: DNA, RNA, or protein?Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- Survivin and Her2 Expressions in Different Grades of Urothelial Neoplasms of Urinary Bladder.Iranian journal of pathology · 2021Article
- Article
- Diagnostic biomarkers in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.World journal of urology · 2019Review
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study is a meta-analysis and aims to determine the value of urinary survivin for detecting bladder cancer (BC) on the basis of preceding statistical performance and to compare their diagnostic value. MATERIALS AND
methodsConsidering that the urinary survivin data were from both RNA and protein levels, the key words "bladder cancer" AND "survivin" and "bladder cancer" AND "survivin RNA" were used; and PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify relevant articles. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by QUADAS-2. Data were analyzed by STATA 12.0 and Meta-disc v.1.4 software package. A random-effects model was used and subgroup analysis was carried out to identify possible sources of heterogeneity.
resultsNine articles for survivin protein test with 789 patients and 684 controls, and 12 articles for survivin RNA test with 880 patients and 922 controls were identified. The results showed that the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.73, 0.84), specificity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.79, 0.92) of the survivin protein test for bladder cancer, and the sensitivity and specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.79, 0.88) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89, 0.97) of the survivin RNA test. The AUC of the two approaches was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86, 0.91) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92, 0.96), respectively.
conclusionsThe survivin protein and survivin RNA both had great potential as biomarkers for BC detection, and survivin RNA showed higher accuracy than survivin protein on BC 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.