Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32280688›Full record

SynthesisBioMed research international2020

Identification of Circulating MicroRNAs as a Promising Diagnostic Biomarker for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Early Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Yao Jiang, Zuohong Hu, Zhihua Zuo, Yiqin Li, Fei Pu, Biqiong Wang, Yan Tang, Yongcan Guo, Hualin Tao

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

Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Cervical Cancer, Papillomavirus, and miRNA Dysfunction.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021
    Review
  15. 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

9 authors.

Yao JiangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5254-550X
Zuohong HuDepartment of Pathology, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8338-8343
Zhihua ZuoDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5493-1482
Yiqin LiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8900-5198
Fei PuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9755-0425
Biqiong WangDepartment of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-7884
Yan TangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Jinniu Maternity And Child Health Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5513-6453
Yongcan GuoClinical Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital Affiliated to Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9968-7441
Hualin TaoDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9828-626X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer (CC) is one of the most common female malignant tumors. And cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is the precancerous lesion of CC, which can progress to invasive CC. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have been found to be potential diagnostic biomarkers for CIN or CC. However, recently, the lack of sufficient studies about the diagnostic value of miRNAs for CIN made it challenging to separately investigate the diagnostic efficacy of miRNAs for CIN. Likewise, the conclusions among those studies were discordant. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis, aimed at evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of miRNAs for CIN and CC patients.

methodsLiterature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and other diagnostic parameters were calculated through Stata 14.0 software. Furthermore, subgroup analyses and metaregression analysis were conducted to explore the main sources of heterogeneity.

resultsTen articles covering 50 studies were eligible, which included 5,908 patients and 4,819 healthy individuals. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), 5.9 (95% CI, 4.5-7.7), 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.28), 27 (95% CI, 17-44), and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93), respectively. Additionally, the ethnicity and internal reference were the main sources of heterogeneity.

conclusionsCirculating miRNAs can be a promising noninvasive diagnostic biomarker for CIN and early CC, especially miR-9 and miR-205, which need to be verified by large-scale studies.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCirculating MicroRNADatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMicroRNAsSensitivity and SpecificityUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorCirculating MicroRNAMicroRNAs

Identifiers

PMID32280688
PMCPMC7125453

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.