Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32128229›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open gastroenterology2020

Utility of the methylated SEPT9 test for the early detection of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Rohit Hariharan, Mark Jenkins

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic accuracy of methylatedFrontiers in endocrinology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Pre-TreatmentCancers · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rohit HariharanCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Mark JenkinsCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8964-6160
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Circulating tumour DNA from colorectal cancer (CRC) is a biomarker for early detection of the disease and therefore potentially useful for screening. One such biomarker is the methylated SEPT9 (mSEPT9) gene, which occurs during CRC tumourigenesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to establish the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of mSEPT9 tests for the early diagnosis of CRC. Methods: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted using Medline and Embase databases. Data were extracted from the eligible studies and analysed to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic test accuracy. Results: Based on 19 studies, the pooled estimates (and 95% CIs) for mSEPT9 to detect CRC were: sensitivity 69% (62-75); specificity 92% (89-95); positive likelihood ratio 9.1 (6.1-13.8); negative likelihood ratio 0.34 (0.27-0.42); diagnostic OR 27 (15-48) and area under the curve 0.89 (0.86-0.91). The test has a positive predictive value of 2.6% and negative predictive value of 99.9% in an average risk population (0.3% CRC prevalence), and 9.5% (positive predictive value) and 99.6% (negative predictive value) in a high-risk population (1.2% CRC prevalence). Conclusion: The mSEPT9 test has high specificity and moderate sensitivity for CRC and is therefore a potential alternative screening method for those declining faecal immunochemical test for occult blood (FIT) or other screening modalities. However, it is limited by its poor diagnostic performance for precancerous lesions (advanced adenomas and polyps) and its relatively high costs, and little is known about its acceptability to those declining to use the FIT.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansOccult BloodSeptinsSEPTIN9 protein, humanSeptinscancer epidemiologycolorectal cancerscreening

Identifiers

PMID32128229
PMCPMC7039590
OpenAlexW3007917043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.