SynthesisDisease markers2020
Diagnosis Test Meta-Analysis for Apolipoprotein E in Alzheimer's Disease.
Synthesis in Disease markers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alzheimer's disease phenotype based upon the carrier status of the apolipoprotein E ɛ4 allele.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic value of apolipoprotein E (
methodsDatabases including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Wanfang Med online, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched for literatures in English or Chinese. No limitations on the date. The sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were pooled for meta-analysis. The symmetric receiver operator characteristic curve (SROC) and Fagan's Nomogram were drawn, and metaregression and subgroup analysis were used to explore the source of heterogeneity.
resultsA total of 13 studies, including 2662 cases and 8843 controls, were analyzed. The combined sensitivity (SEN) was 0.62 (95% CI (0.58-0.66)), specificity (SPE) was 0.84 (95% CI (0.81-0.86)), the positive likelihood ratio was 3.8 (95% CI (3.3-4.3)), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.45 (95% CI (0.41-0.49)). The area under the ROC curve was 0.80, and the diagnostic ratio (DOR) was 8. Neither publication bias was detected in Deeks' funnel plot, nor threshold effect was shown in the SROC. Metaregression analysis showed that the diagnostic methods, experimental design, and sample size contributed to the heterogeneity in SEN, while the diagnostic methods, experimental design, blind evaluation on test results, and sample size contributed to the heterogeneity in SPE. When the pretest probability was set as 50%, the posterior probability in Fagan's Nomogram was 79%, the positive likelihood ratio (LRP) was 5, and the negative likelihood ratio (LRN) was 0.42.
conclusionsAD could neither be confirmed nor excluded by the
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.