ArticleMedicine2019
Biomarkers for detecting malignant pleural mesothelioma: Protocol for a reanalysis of published data based on systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMalignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly invasive tumor caused primarily by asbestos exposure. In recent decades, the incidence of MPM has shown an increasing trend, posing a great threat to human health. Although there is currently no effective way to treat MPM, patients can survive for more than 5 years if the tumor is removed early. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the diagnostic value of biomarkers for diagnosing MPM. However, no studies have been conducted to analyze the quality of these SRs and it remains unclear which biomarker is the excellent diagnostic test. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and reanalyze the published data based on SRs to find the optimal biomarker for the early diagnosis of MPM.
methodsA systematic search will be performed in PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science to identify SRs reporting value of biomarkers for detecting MPM. We will evaluate the risk of bias of the included SRs according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) instrument. Standard pairwise meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison will be used to compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers.
resultsThe results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
conclusionThis study will reanalyze the published data based on SRs to find a biomarker with the superior diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of MPM. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is an overview based on published systematic reviews. 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.