SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2020
Diagnostic value of seven biomarkers for breast cancer: an overview with evidence mapping and indirect comparisons of diagnostic test accuracy.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a non-invasive nomogram for predicting bone metastasis in newly diagnosed breast cancer.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- FTOZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025Article
- EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2023Review
- Article
- Effect of Taijiquan assisted rehabilitation for breast cancer patients: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2021Article
- Upregulated N6-Methyladenosine RNA in Peripheral Blood: Potential Diagnostic Biomarker for Breast Cancer.Cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Machine Learning Models to Improve the Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions on Ultrasound: A Multicenter External Validation Study.Cancer management and research · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several meta-analyses have evaluated the value of biomarkers in diagnosing breast cancer, but which biomarker has the optimal diagnostic value remains unclear. This overview aimed to compare the accuracy of different biomarkers in diagnosing breast cancer. PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality and preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) for reporting quality. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled results for each biomarker, and indirect comparisons were conducted to compare diagnostic accuracy between biomarkers. Eleven systematic reviews (SRs) involving 218 original studies were included. All SRs were of critically low methodological quality, 3 SRs had minimal reporting flaws and 8 SRs had minor flaws. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 and 0.87 for miRNA, 0.70 and 0.87 for circulating cell-free DNA, 0.29 and 0.96 for APC gene promoter methylation, 0.69 and 0.99 for 14-3-3σ promoter methylation, 0.63 and 0.82 for CA153, 0.58 and 0.87 for CEA, and 0.73 and 0.56 for PSA. Compared with CA153 and PSA, miRNA had a higher sensitivity and specificity. The sensitivity of miRNA was higher than circulating cell-free DNA and CEA, although they had the same specificities. APC gene promoter methylation and 14-3-3σ promoter methylation were more specific than miRNA, but they had unacceptably low sensitivity. In conclusion, miRNA had better diagnostic accuracy than the other six biomarkers. But due to the low quality of included SRs, the results need to be interpreted with caution. Further study should investigate the diagnostic accuracy of different biomarkers in direct comparisons and focus on the value of combined biomarkers.
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.