SynthesisChinese medical journal2018
Diagnostic Performance of Intestinal
Synthesis in Chinese medical journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Clinical applications of gut microbiome for non-invasive diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- From oral dysbiosis to colorectal cancer: reframing fusobacterium nucleatum as an oxidative stress-primed oncobion.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- State of omics-based microbial diagnostics of CRC.Gut microbes · 2025Review
- Fusobacterium Nucleatum in Colorectal Cancer: Relationship Among Immune Modulation, Potential Biomarkers and Therapeutic Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Association ofGut microbiome (Cambridge, England) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Periodontitis andHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Gut Microbiome and colorectal cancer: discovery of bacterial changes with metagenomics application in Turkısh population.Genes & genomics · 2024Article
- Application ofWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: A review of current knowledge and progress in research.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Review
- Gut Microbiota and Colorectal Cancer: An Umbrella Review of Methodological Trends and Clinical Correlations.Cureus · 2024Review
- A qualitative interview study on colorectal cancer screening in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Research progress on the correlation between intestinal flora and colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Mucosal Microbiota from Colorectal Cancer, Adenoma and Normal Epithelium Reveals the Imprint ofMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Evaluating the predictive performance of gut microbiota for the early-stage colorectal cancer.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Gut microbiota modulation: a tool for the management of colorectal cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Review
- A New Comorbidity in Periodontitis:Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Article
- Association of Radiotherapy-Related Intestinal Injury and Cancer-related Fatigue: A Brief Review and Commentary.Puerto Rico health sciences journal · 2021Review
- Revealing oral microbiota composition and functionality associated with heavy cigarette smoking.Journal of translational medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing evidence has supported the link of intestinal Fusobacterium nucleatum infection to colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the value of F. nucleatum as a biomarker in CRC detection has not been fully defined. In order to reduce the random error and bias of individual research, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of intestinal F. nucleatum in CRC patients and provide evidence-based data to clinical practice.
methodsAn article search was performed from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to December 2017, using the following key words: "Fusobacterium nucleatum", "Fusobacterium spp.", "Fn", "colorectal cancer(s)", "colorectal carcinoma(s)", "colorectal neoplasm(s)", and "colorectal tumor(s)". Articles on relationships between F. nucleatum and CRC were selected according to the preestablished inclusion and exclusion criteria. This meta-analysis was performed using STATA 12.0 software, which included mapping of forest plots, heterogeneity tests, meta-regression, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of each eligible study were summarized.
resultsFinally, data for 1198 participants (629 CRC and 569 healthy controls) in 10 controlled studies from seven articles were included. The summary receiver operator characteristic curve was mapped. The diagnostic performance of intestinal F. nucleatum infection on CRC was as follows: the area under the curve: 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89), the pooled sensitivity: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.64-0.91), specificity: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.59-0.89), and DOR: 14.00 (95% CI: 9.00-22.00).
conclusionIntestinal F. nucleatum is a valuable marker for CRC 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.