Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34204396›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2021

Salivary DNA Methylation as an Epigenetic Biomarker for Head and Neck Cancer. Part I: A Diagnostic Accuracy Meta-Analysis.

Óscar Rapado-González, Cristina Martínez-Reglero, Ángel Salgado-Barreira, Laura Muinelo-Romay, Juan Muinelo-Lorenzo, Rafael López-López, Ángel Díaz-Lagares, María Mercedes Suárez-Cunqueiro

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Óscar Rapado-GonzálezDepartment of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, Medicine and Dentistry School, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8419-7004
Cristina Martínez-RegleroMethodology and Statistics Unit, Galicia Sur Health Research Institute (IISGS), 36312 Vigo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9073-3464
Ángel Salgado-BarreiraMethodology and Statistics Unit, Galicia Sur Health Research Institute (IISGS), 36312 Vigo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4349-4947
Laura Muinelo-RomayTranslational Medical Oncology Group (Oncomet), Liquid Biopsy Analysis Unit, Health Research Institute of Santiago (IDIS), 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7456-7531
Juan Muinelo-LorenzoDepartment of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, Medicine and Dentistry School, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Rafael López-LópezCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain.
Ángel Díaz-LagaresCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain.
María Mercedes Suárez-CunqueiroDepartment of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, Medicine and Dentistry School, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7774-0643

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA hypermethylation is an important epigenetic mechanism for gene expression inactivation in head and neck cancer (HNC). Saliva has emerged as a novel liquid biopsy representing a potential source of biomarkers. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the overall diagnostic accuracy of salivary DNA methylation for detecting HNC. PubMed EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Study quality was assessed by the Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy-2, and sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (dOR), and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a bivariate random-effect meta-analysis model. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to assess heterogeneity. Eighty-four study units from 18 articles with 8368 subjects were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of salivary DNA methylation were 0.39 and 0.87, respectively, while PLR and NLR were 3.68 and 0.63, respectively. The overall area under the curve (AUC) was 0.81 and the dOR was 8.34. The combination of methylated genes showed higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC, 0.92 and dOR, 36.97) than individual gene analysis (AUC, 0.77 and dOR, 6.02). These findings provide evidence regarding the potential clinical application of salivary DNA methylation for HNC diagnosis.

Indexed as

biomarkersDNA methylationepigeneticshead and neck cancerliquid biopsymeta-analysissaliva

Identifiers

PMID34204396
PMCPMC8233749

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.