Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33901236›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

In Silico screening of circulating tumor DNA, circulating microRNAs, and long non-coding RNAs as diagnostic molecular biomarkers in ovarian cancer: A comprehensive meta-analysis.

Linlin Zhang, Chenyan Hu, Zhongping Huang, Zhijia Li, Qin Zhang, Yang He

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. The Role of miRNA in Ovarian Cancer: an Overview.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Linlin ZhangDepartment of Gynecology, People's Hospital of Mianzhu City, Deyang, Sichuan, China.
Chenyan HuCollege of Medical Technology, State Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Zhongping HuangDepartment of Gynecology, People's Hospital of Mianzhu City, Deyang, Sichuan, China.
Zhijia LiCollege of Medical Technology, State Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Qin ZhangDepartment of Gynecology, People's Hospital of Mianzhu City, Deyang, Sichuan, China.
Yang HeCollege of Medical Technology, State Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0163-4307
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOvarian cancer (OC) is a leading cause of death in gynecological malignancies worldwide. Multitudinous studies have suggested the potential of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), circulating microRNAs (miRNAs), and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) as novel diagnostic molecular biomarkers for OC. Here, we include three updated meta-analysis methods using different molecular biomarkers to evaluate their discriminative value in OC diagnosis.

methodsWe conducted three meta-analyses after searching different databases, and 23 eligible articles, including 8 concerning ctDNA, 11 concerning miRNAs, and 4 concerning lncRNAs, were found. Further, we pooled data concerning the sensitivity, specificity, and other indicators of accuracy for ctDNA/miRNAs/lncRNAs in the diagnosis of OC. The heterogeneity was further explored by meta-regressions and subgroup analyses, and Deeks' funnel plots were used to measure the publication bias of these three meta-analyses.

resultsIn all, this meta-analysis included 1732 OC patients and 3958 controls. The sensitivity of ctDNA for OC diagnosis was superior to that of lncRNA and miRNA (84% vs. 81% vs. 78%). Moreover, the specificity and area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of ctDNA were 91% and 94%, which were significantly higher than those of miRNA and lncRNAs (78% and 85%; 78% and 86%, respectively). No significant difference was observed among the two meta-analyses of ctDNA and lncRNA (P > 0.05) with regard to publication bias, while the meta-analysis of miRNA observed a significantly small publication bias (P < 0.05).

conclusionctDNA/miRNAs/lncRNAs may be promising molecular biomarkers for OC diagnosis. Further large-scale studies are needed to verify the potential applicability of ctDNA/miRNAs/lncRNAs molecular signatures alone or in combination as diagnostic molecular biomarkers for OC.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAFemaleHumansMicroRNAsOvarian NeoplasmsRNA, Long NoncodingROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAMicroRNAsRNA, Long Noncoding

Identifiers

PMID33901236
PMCPMC8075214
OpenAlexW3159621728

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.