SynthesisMedicine2020
Reliability of digital PCR in detecting KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer using plasma sample: 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection ofOncology research · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTest on the KRAS somatic mutation status is necessary before cetuximab and panitumumab treatments are given to colorectal cancer patients. Metastatic colorectal cancer patients sometimes lack tumor tissue samples, and the testing of KRAS mutation in plasma samples requires highly sensitive methods.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital PCR in detecting KRAS mutation in plasma samples of colorectal cancer patients. DATA SOURCES: Literature research was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND
interventionsDatabase searching found 188 relevant studies. After removing duplicates, eligible studies were selected from 151 publications using the following exclusion criteria: STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
methods: Data were extracted from the eligible studies by 2 independent researchers. Pooled accuracy parameters were calculated from those extracted data using Meta-DiSc and STATA software.
resultsTwelve eligible studies were selected for the systematic review and meta-analysis. After calculation, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86) and 0.91 (95%CI: 0.88-0.93), respectively. Pooled positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 7.30 (95%CI: 4.78-11.17), 0.22 (95%CI: 0.15-0.32), and 41.00 (95%CI: 21.07-79.78), respectively. Area under curve of the summarized ROC curve was 0.9322. LIMITATIONS: Although no significant bias was identified, number of included studies was still quite small, especially in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATION OF KEY
findingsDigital PCR showed high accuracy and could be a reliable detection method for KRAS mutation in plasma samples. Large-cohort prospective study is required to further confirm the usefulness of digital PCR in KRAS mutation detection.
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.