Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32629696›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2020

Volatile organic compounds analysis as a potential novel screening tool for colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wenchuan Zhou, Jinxin Tao, Jin Li, Shaoyu Tao

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05173077 (Hybrid-sensor Breath Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT05173077 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Hybrid-sensor Breath Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Screening (HYCOR)

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of LatviaRan2022 to 2023Enrolled3,000ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Polyp of ColonArmsIdentification of specific VOCs in CRC tissue surgery material, Secondary validation study in general CRC screening settings, Breath sampling for VOC detection, Blood sample collection, Microbiota testing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. The Present and Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022
    Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wenchuan ZhouDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Jinxin TaoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Jin LiDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Shaoyu TaoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Nanchang University · CNSecond Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the usefulness of volatile organic compounds (VOC) as a potential novel biomarker for colorectal cancer (CRC).We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for observational studies (published before November 25th, 2019; no language restrictions) comparing the VOC analysis between patients with CRC and healthy controls. We evaluated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive and negative likelihood ratio, as well as summary receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve.We identified a total of 10 observational studies that included 381 patients with CRC and 436 healthy controls. Bivariate analysis yielded a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77-0.86), specificity of 0.79 (95% CI = 0.71-0.85), positive likelihood ratio of 3.8 (95% CI = 2.8-5.3), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.23 (95% CI = 0.17-0.30). The area under the curve was 0.87 (95% CI = 0.84-0.90). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 17 (95% CI = 10-28). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the pooled results were stabilized. The Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test (P = .41) suggested no potential publication bias.Our pooled data confirmed the associations between VOC analysis and CRC, highlighting the usefulness of VOC analysis as a potential novel screening tool for CRC. However, standardization of VOC collection and analysis methods for CRC screening is required in future research.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansPredictive Value of TestsVolatile Organic CompoundsBiomarkers, TumorVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID32629696
PMCPMC7337537
OpenAlexW3038581173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.