ArticleMedicine2019
The value of biomarkers in colorectal cancer: Protocol for an overview and a secondary analysis of 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. 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.
- Quantitative dot blot method for measuring EGFR protein levels in patients with colorectal cancer.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) gene c.1627A>G A/G and G/G genotypes are risk factors for lymph node metastasis and distant metastasis of colorectal cancer.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
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
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world, with 694,000 deaths each year. Despite improvements in treatment strategies in recent years, the overall survival rate of CRC is still very low and the survival rate is highly dependent on the stage at the time of diagnosis. Some biomarkers have shown great potential for early screening of CRC and some have been tested in systematic reviews (SRs). However, the quality of these SRs remains unclear and these SRs did not clarify which biomarker is the optimal diagnostic test. This overview will evaluate the methodological quality of available SRs and compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers in order to find the best biomarker for diagnosing CRC.
methodsA comprehensive literature search for SRs published before February 2019 was conducted in the PubMed, Embase.com, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science without any language restrictions. We will use the assessment of multiple systematic reviews-2 instrument to assess the methodological quality of each SR. Bubble plots will be used to summarize the main characteristics and quality of SRs. Standard pairwise meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison will be conducted to compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers.
resultsThe results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
conclusionThe findings of this project will provide a general overview and evidence of the diagnostic value of biomarkers in detecting CRC. 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.