Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32871983›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2020

Diagnostic value of circulating tumor DNA in molecular characterization of glioma: A meta-analysis.

Yin Kang, Xiaohua Lin, Dezhi Kang

Open 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. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yin KangDepartment of Neurosurgery.
Xiaohua LinDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Dezhi KangDepartment of Neurosurgery.ORCID 0000-0002-5932-761
Fujian Medical University · CNS.P.E.C.I.E.S. · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has provided a minimally invasive approach for the detection of genetic mutations in glioma. However, the diagnostic value of ctDNA in glioma remains unclear. This meta-analysis was designed to investigate the diagnostic value of ctDNA, compared with the current "criterion standard" tumor tissues. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe included studies were collected by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. All statistical analyses were performed using the STATA12.0 and Meta-DiSc1.4 software.

resultA total of 11 studies comprising 522 glioma patients met our inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.73) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 23.27 (95% CI 13.69-39.53) and the area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.90 (95% CI 0.89-0.92).

conclusionsctDNA analysis is an effective method to detect the genetic mutation status in glioma patients with high specificity and relatively moderate sensitivity. The application of high-throughput technologies, the detection of patients with high-grade glioma, and sampling from cerebrospinal fluid could have higher diagnostic accuracy. The improvement of detection methods and more large-sample case-control studies are required in the future.

Indexed as

Circulating Tumor DNABiomarkers, TumorCentral Nervous System NeoplasmsGliomaHumansBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNA

Identifiers

PMID32871983
PMCPMC7437834
OpenAlexW3049033404

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.