SynthesisSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
Can p63 serve as a biomarker for diagnosing giant cell tumor of bone? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of the early recurrence in spinal giant cell tumor of bone using radiomics of preoperative CT: Long-term outcome of 62 consecutive patients.Journal of bone oncology · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTumor protein p63 (p63) has been reported to be highly expressed in giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB). Whether p63 can be treated as a diagnostic marker for GCTB remains unclear.
objectiveWe conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the applicability of p63 in diagnosing GCTB. DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review and meta-analysis carried out in a public hospital, Hong Kong, China.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to April 30, 2019. Literature in English or Chinese about the differential diagnosis of GCTB using p63 were included. -Animal experiments, reviews, correspondence, case reports, expert opinions and editorials were excluded. Studies were also excluded if they did not provide sufficient information to construct a 2 × 2 contingency table. We calculated individual and pooled sensitivities and specificities. We used I² as an indicator of heterogeneity.
resultsOut of 88 records identified, 8 articles on 788 GCTB patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the present analysis. Bivariate analyses yielded a pooled mean sensitivity of 0.87 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.72-0.95) and specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.56-0.82) for using p63 as a biomarker in diagnosing GCTB. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88).
conclusionp63 is a helpful indicator in diagnosing GCTB due to its high sensitivity and specificity. -Nonetheless, the results need to be carefully interpreted based on other diagnostic methods such as imaging. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: 164115 (PROSPERO registration number).
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.