Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35022525›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2022

MicroRNAs as biomarkers for prostate cancer prognosis: a systematic review and a systematic reanalysis of public data.

Sharmila Rana, Gabriel N Valbuena, Ed Curry, Charlotte L Bevan, Hector C Keun

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: From Diagnosis to Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Prostate Cancer.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sharmila RanaDivision of Cancer, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Gabriel N ValbuenaWellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK.
Ed CurryGSK, Stevenage, SG1 2NY, UK.
Charlotte L BevanDivision of Cancer, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, W12 0NN, UK. charlotte.bevan@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7533-0552
Hector C KeunDivision of Cancer, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, W12 0NN, UK. h.keun@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7358-8851
Imperial College London · GBAge UK · GBCentre for Human Genetics · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReliable prognostic biomarkers to distinguish indolent from aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) are lacking. Many studies investigated microRNAs (miRs) as PCa prognostic biomarkers, often reporting inconsistent findings. We present a systematic review of these; also systematic reanalysis of public miR-profile datasets to identify tissue-derived miRs prognostic of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.

methodsIndependent PubMed searches were performed for relevant articles from January 2007 to December 2019. For the review, 128 studies were included. Pooled-hazard-ratios (HRs) for miRs in multiple studies were calculated using a random-effects model (REM). For the reanalysis, five studies were included and Cox proportional-hazard models, testing miR association with BCR, performed for miRs profiled in all.

resultsSystematic review identified 120 miRs as prognostic. Five (let-7b-5p, miR-145-5p, miR152-3p, miR-195-5p, miR-224-5p) were consistently associated with progression in multiple cohorts/studies. In the reanalysis, ten (let-7a-5p, miR-148a-3p, miR-203a-3p, miR-26b-5p, miR30a-3p, miR-30c-5p, miR-30e-3p, miR-374a-5p, miR-425-3p, miR-582-5p) were significantly prognostic of BCR. Of these, miR-148a-3p (HR = 0.80/95% CI = 0.68-0.94) and miR-582-5p (HR = 0.73/95% CI = 0.61-0.87) were also reported in prior publication(s) in the review.

conclusionsFifteen miRs were consistently associated with disease progression in multiple publications or datasets. Further research into their biological roles is warranted to support investigations into their performance as prognostic PCa biomarkers.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCohort StudiesHumansMaleMicroRNAsPrognosisProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsSurvival RateBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAs

Identifiers

PMID35022525
PMCPMC8810870
OpenAlexW4206339768

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.