Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35706801›Full record

ArticleTranslational cancer research2022

Identification of a three-miRNA panel in serum for bladder cancer diagnosis by a diagnostic test.

Rongkang Li, Yong Xia, Xuan Chen, Xinji Li, Guocheng Huang, Xiqi Peng, Kaihao Liu, Chunduo Zhang, Mingyang Li, Yu Lin and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational cancer research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rongkang LiDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Male Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Yong XiaDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Xuan ChenDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Male Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Xinji LiDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Male Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Guocheng HuangDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Male Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Xiqi PengDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Male Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Kaihao LiuDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Male Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Chunduo ZhangDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Male Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Mingyang LiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Yu LinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Jing DongDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Ling JiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Yongqing LaiDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Male Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Peking University Shenzhen Hospital · CNAnhui Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Bladder cancer (BC) is the tenth most common cancer in the world. Serum microRNA (miRNA) profiles previously have been reported as non-invasive biomarkers in cancer screening. The non-invasive and reliable diagnostic biomarkers are urgently needed for detecting BC, while cystoscopy is invasive. Our study aimed to identify candidate miRNAs in serum as potential diagnostic biomarkers for BC detection. Methods: This study was including the screening stage, training stage, and validation stage with 137 BC patients and 127 healthy controls (HCs). We identified the expression of 28 serum miRNAs from 5 BC pools and 3 HC pools in the initial screening stage. The other 112 BC patients and 112 HCs were randomly divided into training stage with 30 BC patients and 30 HCs and validation stages with 82 BC patients and 82 HCs. These HCs matched BC patients based on age and gender with P value >0.05. Identified dysregulated miRNAs were further confirmed in the training stage, and validation stages by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). The diagnostic value of miRNAs was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Target genes of 3 candidate miRNAs were predicted by bioinformatic analysis. Results: Five miRNAs (miR-106a-5p, miR-145-5p, miR-132-3p, miR-7-5p and miR-148b-3p) in serum were obviously dysregulated in BC patients compared to HCs. The ability to diagnose BC of 3 candidate miRNAs was estimated by AUC, with miR-132-3p (AUC =0.781; sensitivity =68.29%, specificity =81.71%), miR-7-5p (AUC =0.778; sensitivity =59.76%, specificity =84.15%) and miR-148b-3p (AUC =0.837; sensitivity =81.71%, specificity =71.95%). Combined application of these candidate miRNAs with parallel test could improve the diagnostic value (AUC =0.922; sensitivity =90.24%, specificity =81.71%). Conclusions: A three-miRNA panel in serum was identified for BC diagnosis in our study, which HCs were used for differential diagnosis. The three-miRNA panel (miR-132-3p, miR-7-5p, and miR-148b-3p) might be performed as a non-invasive and convenient diagnostic tool for BC screening and diagnosis.

Indexed as

bioinformaticsbiomarkerBladder cancer (BC)diagnosismicroRNA (miRNA)

Identifiers

PMID35706801
PMCPMC9189164
OpenAlexW4283021153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.