SynthesisMedicine2020
Efficacy of raman spectroscopy in the diagnosis of kidney cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnosis accuracy of Raman spectroscopy in the diagnosis of breast cancer: a meta-analysis.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Pooled it
- Quantification of glycated hemoglobin and glucose in vivo using Raman spectroscopy and artificial neural networks.Lasers in medical science · 2022Article
- SERS Liquid Biopsy Profiling of Serum for the Diagnosis of Kidney Cancer.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Application and Progress of Raman Spectroscopy in Male Reproductive System.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo comprehensively analyze the relative effectiveness of Raman spectroscopy (RS) in the diagnosis of suspected kidney cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a complete systematic review based on studies from PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Ovid, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. We identified 2413 spectra with strict criteria in 6 individual studies published between January 2008 and November 2018 in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We summarized the test performance using random effects models.
resultsGeneral pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of RS to kidney cancer were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-0.97) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.92). The pooled positive likelihood ratio (LR) was 9.57 (95% CI 5.73-15.46) while the negative LR was 0.04 (95% CI 0.02-0.11). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 238.06 (95% CI 77.79-728.54). The area under curve of summary receiver operator characteristics was 0.9466.
conclusionThrough this meta-analysis, we found a promisingly high sensitivity and specificity of RS in the diagnosis of suspected kidney masses and tumors. Other parameters like positive LR, negative LR, diagnostic odds ratio and area under curve of the summary receiver operator characteristics curve all helped to illustrate the high efficacy of RS in the diagnosis of kidney cancer.
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.