Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36419785›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022

MicroRNA panels as diagnostic biomarkers for colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Daniel Sur, Shailesh Advani, Dejana Braithwaite

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel SurDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Oncology Institute "Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuţă" Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Shailesh AdvaniDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States.
Dejana BraithwaiteDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROTerasaki Foundation · USUniversity of Florida Health · US

Funding

University of Florida Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC)P30AG028740 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Stephen D Anton · 2007 to 2026
$22.8M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Circulating microRNAs (miRNA) have emerged as promising diagnostic biomarkers for several diseases, including cancer. However, the diagnostic accuracy of miRNA panels in colorectal cancer (CRC) remains inconsistent and there is still lack of meta-analyses to determine whether miRNA panels can serve as robust biomarkers for CRC diagnosis. Methods: This study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical utility of miRNA panels as potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of CRC. The investigation systematically searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar (21-year span, between 2000 and 2021) to retrieve articles reporting the diagnostic role of miRNA panels in detecting CRC. Diagnostic meta-analysis of miRNA panels used diverse evaluation indicators, including sensitivity, specificity, Positive Likelihood Ratio (PLR), Negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR), Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) values. Results: Among the 313 articles identified, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimates of miRNA panels for the diagnosis of CRC were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.84-0.86), 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78-0.80), 4.06 (95% CI: 3.89-4.23), 0.20 (95% CI: 0.19-0.20), 22.50 (95% CI: 20.81-24.32) for sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR, respectively. Moreover, the summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curve revealed an AUC value of 0.915 (95% CI: 0.914-0.916), suggesting an outstanding diagnostic accuracy for overall miRNA panels. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses demonstrated that miRNA panels have the highest diagnostic accuracy within serum samples, rather than in other sample-types - with a sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC of 0.87, 0.86, 7.33, 0.13, 55.29, and 0.943, respectively. Sensitivity analysis revealed that DOR values did not differ markedly, which indicates that the meta-analysis had strong reliability. Furthermore, this study demonstrated no proof of publication bias for DOR values analyzed using Egger's regression test ( Conclusion: This study's findings indicated that miRNA panels, particularly serum-derived miRNA panels, can serve as powerful and promising biomarkers for early CRC screening. Systematic review registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021268172].

Indexed as

biomarkercolorectal cancerdiagnosticmiRNApanels

Identifiers

PMID36419785
PMCPMC9676370
OpenAlexW4308449789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.