SynthesisDisease markers2022
Diagnostic Value of Nonacid Nucleic Blood Tumor Marker Panels in Early Diagnosing Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Disease markers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of the diagnostic value of various microRNAs in blood for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- SFPQ and Its Isoform as Potential Biomarker for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study is aimed at determining the best nonacid nucleic blood tumor marker panels in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in order to detect breast cancer in early stages (I, II, and III) among eligible women for breast cancer screening. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were systematically reviewed to assess nonacid nucleic blood tumor marker panels' diagnostic value in women, both healthy and patient (before any anticancer treatment), for detecting breast cancer. A network meta-analysis was carried out using a Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate combined odd ratio (OR) and 95% CI credible interval for presenting the results. Rankograms plot was drawn to rank the diagnostic value of different panels. Of the 2358 titles initially identified, 9 studies and 8 panels were included in the network meta-analysis. Panels A (MMP-9/TIMP-1) and K (TF1+TF2+TF3) had the highest sensitivity in early stages, as panel A with OR = 11.61 and 95% CI (1.49-102.5) demonstrated a better function than mammography. Panels H (CA 15.3 + IL-18) and A (MMP-9/TIMP-1) had the highest specificity in early stages, but no significant difference with mammography. Panels A (MMP-9/TIMP-1) and H (CA 15.3 + IL-18) had the highest accuracy in early stages, as they significantly exhibited a higher function than mammography with OR = 6.87 and 95% CI (2.07-31.35) as well as OR = 3.44 and 95% CI (1.15-11.07), respectively. Panel A including MMP-9/TIMP-1 in early stages demonstrated a higher diagnostic value for breast cancer than the rest of the panels.
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.