ArticleOncology letters2018
MicroRNA-195 as a diagnostic biomarker in human cancer detection: A meta-analysis.
Article in Oncology letters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Identification of a circulating miR-6838-5p/miR-195-5p signature in invasive ductal breast carcinoma.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- The clinical potential of PDL-1 pathway and some related micro-RNAs as promising diagnostic markers for breast cancer.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- miR-15/107 microRNA Gene Group: Characteristics and Functional Implications in Cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020Review
- Increased expression of miR-181d is associated with poor prognosis and tumor progression of gastric cancer.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MicroRNAs (miRNAs/miRs) show great promise as novel cancer biomarkers. Several studies have revealed an association between abnormal miRNA expression and the risk of various cancer types. However, the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of miRNAs remains unclear. The present meta-analysis was performed to summarize the overall diagnostic performance of miR-195 for cancer. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for associated literature published until December 10, 2017. Eligible studies were selected using multiple search strategies based on study selection criteria. Measures, including sensitivity and specificity, of the performance of miR-195 as a cancer diagnostic tool were pooled using bivariate meta-analysis models. All analyses were performed using Stata 14.0. The pooled analysis included 8 studies comprising 735 cases and 547 controls. The pooled diagnostic results calculated from all studies were as follows: Sensitivity, 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-0.87]; specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-0.93); positive likelihood ratio, 4.9 (95% CI, 2.50-9.50); negative likelihood ratio, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.18-0.35); diagnostic odds ratio, 20 (95% CI, 10.00-38.00); and area under the curve, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90). Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test suggested no potential publication bias (P=0.53). The present meta-analysis indicated that miR-195 could be a reliable non-invasive biomarker for the diagnosis of cancer. Further large-scale prospective studies are necessary to confirm the present findings and the clinical value of miR-195 for future diagnostics.
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.