SynthesisLasers in medical science2022
The efficacy of Raman spectroscopy in lung cancer diagnosis: the first diagnostic meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of malignant lung tumors using stimulated Raman histology and convolutional neural networks.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Is Raman Spectroscopy of Fingernails a Promising Tool for Diagnosing Systemic and Dermatological Diseases in Adult and Pediatric Populations?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Rapid detection of lung cancer based on serum Raman spectroscopy and a support vector machine: a case-control study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, many researches have explored the diagnostic value of Raman spectroscopy in multiple types of tumors. However, as an emerging clinical examination method, the diagnostic performance of Raman spectroscopy in lung cancer remains unclear. Relevant diagnostic studies published before 1 June 2020 were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and WanFang databases. After the literature was screened, two authors extracted the data from eligible studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Obtained data were pooled and analyzed using Stata 16.0, Meta-DiSc 1.4, and RevMan 5.3 software. Fourteen diagnostic studies were eligible for the pooled analysis which includes 779 patients. Total pooled sensitivity and specificity of Raman spectroscopy in diagnosing lung cancer were 0.92 (95% CI 0.87-0.95) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.88-0.97), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 15.2 (95% CI 7.5-30.9), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05-0.14), and the area under the curve was 0.97 (95 % CI 0.95-0.98). Subgroup analysis suggested that the sensitivity and specificity of RS when analyzing human tissue, serum, and saliva samples were 0.95 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), 0.97 (95% CI 0.89-0.99), 0.88 (95% CI 0.80-0.93), 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.92), 0.91 (95% CI 0.80-0.96), and 0.95 (95% CI 0.73-0.99), respectively. No publication bias or threshold effects were detected in this meta-analysis. This initial meta-analysis indicated that Raman spectroscopy is a highly specific and sensitive diagnostic technology for detecting lung cancer. Further investigations are also needed to focus on real-time detection using Raman spectroscopy under bronchoscopy in vivo. Moreover, large-scale diagnostic studies should be conducted to confirm this conclusion.
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.