ArticleTranslational cancer research2021
Diagnostic value of circulating cell-free DNA for renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liquid biopsy in genitourinary cancers: Diagnostic and prognostic implications.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Understanding and integrating cytoreductive nephrectomy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the management of metastatic RCC.Nature reviews. Urology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur meta-analysis was established for evaluating the diagnostic value of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) for the first time.
methodsThe whole relevant publications published by October 30, 2020 were searched based on multiple databases, including the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Two major subgroups were investigated: the quantitative cfDNA analysis subgroup and the qualitative cfDNA analysis subgroup. The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) as well as the area under the curve (AUC) were estimated to evaluate the diagnostic value.
resultsA total of eight qualified papers published between 2008 and 2020 were selected into this report. The pooled SEN, SPE, and DOR in quantitative analysis subgroup was 0.59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.55-0.63], 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91), 9.98 (95% CI: 5.64-17.69), yielding an AUC of 0.784. In the qualitative analysis subgroup, the corresponding value was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.43-0.52), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.94), 8.83 (95% CI: 5.64-13.84) and 0.774, respectively.
conclusionsCirculating cfDNA can be regarded as a hopeful diagnostic instrument in RCC. Larger multicenter sample studies are required to validate our conclusions further externally and to make this method more sensitive and specific.
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.