SynthesisMedicine2019
A meta-analysis of the diagnostic value of microRNA-1246 for malignant tumors.
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, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Diagnostic Power of Circulating miR-1246 in Screening Cancer: An Updated Meta-analysis.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The assessment of pentraxin 3: a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in lower respiratory tract infections in children.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- In silico and in vitro analysis of the impact of single substitutions within EXO-motifs on Hsa-MiR-1246 intercellular transfer in breast cancer cell.Journal of applied genetics · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer morbidity and mortality are growing rapidly worldwide. There have been an increasing number of studies on the correlation between miRNA1246 expression in circulating blood and tumors; however, no comprehensive conclusion has been reached. Therefore, this meta-analysis was carried out to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of blood levels of microRNA-1246 for malignant tumors.
methodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, the China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from the inception of each database until November 2018. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using the quality assessment tool called Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). The data were pooled using Stata14 and Meta-DiSc 1.4 software.
resultsSeven studies were included. The pooled sensitivity (SENS) was 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-0.89), the pooled specificity (SPEC) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.83), the pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) was 3.55 (95% CI 2.53-4.99), the pooled negative likelihood ratio (NLR) was 0.26 (95% CI 0.16-0.47), the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 13.78 (95% CI 5.84-32.5), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.86). The result of Deeks' funnel plot was P = 0.31, indicating a lack of publication bias.
conclusionMicroRNA-1246 in the blood can be used as a good indicator for the diagnosis of malignant tumor diseases and has a moderate diagnostic accuracy for the differentiation of patients with malignant tumors from healthy people.
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.