ArticleMedicine2019
An overview protocol of biomarkers for breast cancer detection.
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.
- Circulating immune cell populations related to primary breast cancer, surgical removal, and radiotherapy revealed by flow cytometry analysis.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2021Article
- Methylation-Mediated Silencing of MicroRNA-497 Promotes Breast Cancer Progression Through Up-Regulation of Mucin1.Frontiers in oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmong females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death over 100 countries. Generally, the prognosis of early-stage breast cancer is good. However, the prognosis is very poor when the disease is diagnosed at an advanced stage. Many screening methods have been used for early detection of breast cancer, but there are some limitations of these methods. Recently, some systematic reviews have evaluated the value of biomarkers for detecting breast cancer. However, most of the systematic reviews (SRs) only evaluated the diagnostic value of 1 biomarker, and it is unclear which biomarker is the best diagnostic test for breast cancer. This overview aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of available systematic reviews and to compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers.
methodsPubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched to identify published systematic reviews reporting the value of biomarkers for detecting breast cancer. Title and abstracts, as well as full texts, were screened in duplicate based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis diagnostic test accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) checklist will be used to assess the methodological and reporting quality, respectively. We will conduct the pairwise meta-analysis and indirect comparisons using STATA 13.0.
resultsThe results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal
conclusion: This overview will provide comprehensive evidence of different biomarkers for the diagnosis of breast 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.