SynthesisAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2022
Diagnosis accuracy of Raman spectroscopy in the diagnosis of breast cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of AI-based raman spectroscopy in the diagnosis of gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lasers in medical science · 2026Pooled it
- Preoperative serum Raman spectroscopy and machine learning for predicting postoperative acute kidney injury after acute type A aortic dissection.Renal failure · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the diagnostic efficiency of Raman spectroscopy for the diagnosis of breast cancer, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase for articles published from the database establishment to May 20, 2022. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the receiver pooled operating characteristic curve were derived for the included studies as outcome measures. The methodological quality was assessed according to the questionnaires and criteria suggested by the Diagnostic Accuracy Research Quality Assessment-2 tool. Sixteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Raman spectroscopy for breast cancer diagnosis were 0.97 (95% CI, [0.92-0.99]) and 0.96 (95% CI, [0.91-0.98]). The diagnostic odds ratio was 720.89 (95% CI, [135.73-3828.88]) and the area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic curves was 0.99 (95% CI, [0.98-1]). Subgroup analysis revealed that all subgroup types in our analysis, including different races, sample types, diagnostic algorithms, number of spectra, instrument types, and laser wavelengths, turned out to have a sensitivity and specificity greater than 0.9. Significant heterogeneity was found between studies. Deeks' funnel plot demonstrated that publication bias was acceptable. This meta-analysis suggests that Raman spectroscopy may be an effective and accurate tool to differentiate breast cancer from normal breast tissue, which will help us diagnose and treat breast cancer.
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.