ReviewFrontiers in genetics2021
Diagnostic Accuracy of Circular RNAs in Different Types of Samples for Detecting Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. 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.
- Decoding the functional network of circular RNAs encoding proteins in hepatocellular carcinoma: from carcinogenesis to clinical transformation.Journal of advanced research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The lack of accurate biomarkers impeded the screening, diagnosis and early treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). As a result of the development of high-throughput transcriptome analysis techniques, circular RNAs, a newly discovered class of noncoding RNAs, were recognized as potential novel biomarkers. This meta-analysis was performed to update the diagnostic roles of circular RNAs for HCC. We acquired 23 articles from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to September 2021. The overall sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84), and the specificity was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.85), with an AUC of 0.88 (0.85-0.91). Considering of the significant heterogeneity, studies were divided into four groups based on the control types. The circular RNAs in exosomes had a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.61-0.75), and a highest specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96). The pooled sensitivity of circular RNAs in serum/plasma was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87), and the pooled specificity was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86). The pooled sensitivity of circular RNAs distinguishing tumor tissue from chronic hepatitis/cirrhosis tissues was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.48-0.64), and specificity was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.67-0.82). When the controls were adjacent tissues, the sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70-0.84), and the specificity was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.85). Hsa_circ_0001445 with a pooled sensitivity of 0.81, a specificity of 0.76 and an AUC of 0.85 in two studies, might be a suitable diagnostic blood biomarker for HCC. Relying on function in HCC, the AUC of subgroups were 0.88 (95%CI: 0.84-0.90) (function group) and 0.87 (95%CI: 0.84-0.90) (unknown function group). As for only reported in HCC or not, these circular RNAs had an AUC of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.86-0.91) (only in HCC) and 0.85 (95%CI: 0.82-0.88) (not only in HCC). In conclusion, the results suggested that circular RNAs were acceptable biomarkers for detecting HCC, especially those circular RNAs existing in exosomes or serum/plasma.
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.