SynthesisMedicine2019
The diagnostic value of circulating tumor cells for lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Role of circulating tumor cells in diagnosis of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Pooled it
- Liquid biopsy in lung cancer screening: rationale, progress, opportunities and challenges.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Bibliometric and visualized analysis of applying tumor markers in lung cancer diagnosis from 2000 to 2022.Cancer innovation · 2023Review
- Prognostic and Monitoring Value of Circulating Tumor Cells in Adrenocortical Carcinoma: A Preliminary Monocentric Study.Cancers · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCirculating tumor cells (CTCs) have become a potential diagnostic tumor marker and have the potential for wide clinical applications. However, the diagnostic parameters vary among previous studies. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the diagnostic value of CTCs for lung cancer.
methodsEligible studies were searched in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The included studies assessed the diagnostic value of CTCs in patients with lung cancer up to September 30, 2018. A total of 1601 patients in 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) to investigate the diagnostic value of CTCs for lung cancer. STATA version 12.0 and Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software were used to analyze the data.
resultsThe pooled sensitivity was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.73-0.78), the specificity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92), the PLR was 6.29 (95% CI: 3.98-9.96), and the NLR was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.14-0.42). Furthermore, the pooled DOR of CTCs for lung cancer was 27.73 (95% CI: 12.99-59.23). The summarized area under the ROC curve was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95). The meta-regression analysis suggested that the heterogeneity was mainly attributed to the experimental methods. The results of the clinical diagnosis efficiency show that the diagnostic efficiency has increased significantly by testing CTCs for diagnosing lung cancer.
conclusionThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that CTCs are associated with a high diagnostic value for lung cancer. These findings require large-scale prospective studies to verify and evaluate the diagnostic value in the future.
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.