Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33072558›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2020

Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.

Yiwei Feng, Wei Xia, Guangyao He, Rongdan Ke, Lei Liu, Mao Xie, Anzhou Tang, Xiang Yi

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yiwei FengDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Wei XiaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Guangyao HeDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Rongdan KeDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Lei LiuDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Mao XieDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Anzhou TangDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Xiang YiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Guangxi Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of GuangXi Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to collect published studies and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different markers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang for relevant studies until April 29, 2020. The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) values of the diagnostic markers were combined by a bivariate mixed effect model to compare their diagnostic accuracy. We explored heterogeneity through meta-regression. In total, 244 records from 101 articles were included, with 49,432 total study subjects (13,109 cases and 36,323 controls). EA-IgG, Zta-IgG, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA load in non-invasive nasopharyngeal brushings (EBV-DNA brushings) have both high sensitivity and specificity, EBNA1-IgG and VCA-IgG have only high sensitivity, and EBNA1-IgA, VCA-IgA, Rta-IgG, Zta-IgA, HSP70, and serum sialic acid (SA) have only high specificity. The bivariate mixed effect model of EA-IgA had a significant threshold effect. Meta-regression analysis showed that ethnicity affected EBNA1-IgA, EBNA1-IgG, VCA-IgA, and EBV DNA load in plasma, test methods affected EBNA1-IgG, publication year affected VCA-IgA, and sample size affected Rta-IgG. There was significant publication bias for VCA-IgA and Rta-IgG (

Indexed as

diagnosticEB virusmeta-analysisnasopharyngeal carcinomascreening

Identifiers

PMID33072558
PMCPMC7531263
OpenAlexW3092498760

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.