ArticleJournal of oncology2022
Evaluating the Diagnostic Potentials of Circulating Tumor DNA against Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Review
- Potentialities and critical issues of liquid biopsy in clinical practice: An umbrella review.Translational oncology · 2025Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The accurate detection of circulating tumor (ct) DNA is affected by multiple factors, and several controversies still persists regarding clinical applications. In order to assess the consistency of ctDNA gene mutation detection findings in matched melanoma tissue samples and peripheral blood, a meta-analysis was performed and provided evidence-based analysis for its clinical applications. Method: As of May 20, 2019, the database has been searched using the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library search engines. The ctDNA investigations mentioned in this review may be used to directly or indirectly get the true positive (TP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP), and false negative (FN) values of melanoma patients. To be excluded from the study are duplicate publications, research that do not offer a full text, inadequate material or an inability to extract data, and animal trials. Results: Overall, the pooled specificity, sensitivity, NLR, PLR, and DOR were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96), 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.75), 0.32 (95% CI: 0.22-0.45), 8.21 (95% CI: 4.67-14.43), and 32.72 (95% CI: 14.81-72.30), respectively. Additionally, we calculated AUC by drawing the SROC curve, and the value of AUC is 0.9287, which indicates that the accuracy of ctDNA in diagnosing melanoma is 92.87% of the gold standard. Furthermore, we conducted a subgroup analysis for different countries, sample sources, and ctDNA detection methods. The pooled results showed that different countries, sample sources, and ctDNA detection methods showed significantly large differences in terms of sensitivity of ctDNA in diagnosing melanoma, while the specificity basically remained the same. Conclusion: We discovered that the diagnostic outcomes between matched tumor samples and ctDNA remained more reliable in melanoma patients. ctDNA has the advantages of low trauma, convenient dynamic monitoring, and simple operation. ctDNA is expected to become an auxiliary method for the diagnosis of melanoma gene mutations.
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.