Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31263200›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2019

Faecal microRNAs as a non-invasive tool in the diagnosis of colonic adenomas and colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.

Tung On Yau, Ceen-Ming Tang, Elinor K Harriss, Benjamin Dickins, Christos Polytarchou

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Expression of specific microRNAs in tissue and plasma in colorectal cancer.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tung On YauDepartment of Biosciences, John van Geest Cancer Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3283-0370
Ceen-Ming TangOxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Elinor K HarrissBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Benjamin DickinsDepartment of Biosciences, John van Geest Cancer Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0866-6232
Christos PolytarchouDepartment of Biosciences, John van Geest Cancer Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK. christos.polytarchou@ntu.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1948-7934

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are proposed as potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of numerous diseases. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the utility of faecal miRNAs as a non-invasive tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. A systematic literature search, according to predetermined criteria, in five databases identified 17 research articles including 6475, 783 and 5569 faecal-based miRNA tests in CRC, adenoma patients and healthy individuals, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood and diagnostic odds ratios, area under curve (AUC), summary receiver operator characteristic (sROC) curves, association of individual or combinations of miRNAs to cancer stage and location, subgroup, meta-regression and Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry analyses were employed. Pooled miRNAs for CRC had an AUC of 0.811, with a sensitivity of 58.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51.7-65.5%) and specificity of 84.8% (95% CI: 81.1-87.8%), whilst for colonic adenoma, it was 0.747, 57.3% (95% CI: 40.8-72.3%) and 76.1% (95% CI: 66.1-89.4%), respectively. The most reliable individual miRNA was miR-21, with an AUC of 0.843, sensitivity of 59.3% (95% CI: 26.3-85.6%) and specificity of 85.6% (95% CI: 72.2-93.2%). Paired stage analysis showed a better diagnostic accuracy in late stage CRC and sensitivity higher in distal than proximal CRC. In conclusion, faecal miR-21, miR-92a and their combination are promising non-invasive biomarkers for faecal-based CRC screening.

Indexed as

AdenomaColonic NeoplasmsFecesFemaleHumansMaleMicroRNAsRNA, NeoplasmMicroRNAsMIRN21 microRNA, humanMIRN92 microRNA, humanRNA, Neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID31263200
PMCPMC6603164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.