ArticleMedicine2019
Diagnostic performance of biomarkers for ovarian cancer: Protocol for an overview, evidence mapping, and adjusted indirect comparisons.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined Preoperative LMR and CA125 for Prognostic Assessment of Ovarian Cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
- Construction and Validation of a Novel Glycometabolism-Related Gene Signature Predicting Survival in Patients With Ovarian Cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOvarian cancer is one of the deadliest gynecological diseases and the annual mortality of ovarian cancer continues to rise. The prognosis of ovarian cancer is poor because it is prone to early metastasis during progression. Therefore, early diagnosis of ovarian cancer is very important. Some systematic reviews have evaluated the diagnostic value of different biomarkers for ovarian cancer. However, there is no consensus in the conclusions, and some are even contradictory. This study aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of available systematic reviews and to find an optimal biomarker for diagnosing ovarian cancer.
methodsThe PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant systematic reviews from inception to February 2019. We included systematic reviews that include randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, or cohort studies as long as the systematic reviews evaluated the diagnostic performance of biomarkers for ovarian cancer. The methodological quality will be assessed using assessment of multiple systematic reviews-2 checklist, and the reporting quality will be assessed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis diagnostic test accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) checklist. The pairwise meta-analysis and indirect comparisons will be performed using STATA (13.0; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX).
resultsThe results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
conclusionThis overview will provide comprehensive evidence of different biomarkers for diagnosing ovarian cancer. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019125880.
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.