SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Accuracy of novel urinary biomarker tests in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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.
- Microsensors for a Quick Detection of Tissue Functional Age and Precision Medicine.Physiological research · 2026Article
- Non-DRE Voided Urine Test to Diagnose Prostate Cancer: Updated Results.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Liquid-Based Diagnostic Panels for Prostate Cancer: The Synergistic Role of Soluble PD-L1, PD-1, and mRNA Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic value of different urinary markers for prostate cancer. Methods: As of June 2022, the literature was retrieved by searching Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases and other databases. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values was used to determine the most effective diagnostic method and the data were analyzed accordingly using data analysis software. Results: A total of 16 articles was included including 9952 patients. The ranking results of network meta-analysis showed that the diagnostic performance of the four urine markers Selectmdx, MIPS, PCA3 and EPI was better than that of PSA. Among them, the specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of Selectmdx ranked first in the SUCRA ranking (SUCRA values: 85.2%, 88.3%, 97.1%), and the sensitivity ranked second in the SUCRA ranking (SUCRA value: 54.4%), and the negative predictive value ranked fourth in SUCRA (SUCRA value: 51.6%). The most sensitive screening tool was MIPS (SUCRA value: 67.1%), and it was also the second screening tool ranked higher in specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy (SUCRA value: 56.5%, respectively)., 57.1%, 67.9%, 74.3%). The high negative predictive value SUCRA ranking is EPI (SUCRA value: 68.0%), its sensitivity ranks third (SUCRA value: 45.6%), and its specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy are ranked fourth (SUCRA values are: 45%, 38.2%, 35.8%). Conclusion: According to the network ranking diagram, we finally concluded that Selectmdx and MIPS can be used as the most suitable urine markers for prostate cancer screening and diagnosis. To further explore the diagnostic value of different urinary markers in the screening of PCa patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202290094.
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.