SynthesisPloS one2024
A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Evaluation of Biological Techniques.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Integrative advances in biomarker-driven prostate cancer management from genomic discovery to precision oncology.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- A multi-gene urinary extracellular vesicle mRNA panel as a non-invasive biomarkers for prostate cancer detection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Epigenetic and Liquid Biopsy Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer: Bridging Tumor Heterogeneity and Clinical Implementation.Cancers · 2026Review
- Identification of prostate cancer by urinary DLX1/HOXC6 expression in Chinese population with prostate-specific antigen levels of 4-10 ng/mL.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- From bench to bedside: the evolution and future of prostate-specific antigen testing.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- The Role of Genomic Scores in the Management of Prostate Cancer Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Cancers · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To overview the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and to review sources of methodologic variability. Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies investigating the diagnostic value of SelectMDx compared with the gold standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Included studies were assessed according to the Standards for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The review identified 14 relevant publications with 2579 patients. All reports constituted phase 1 biomarker studies. Pooled analysis of findings found an area under the receiver operating characteristic analysis curve of 70% [95% CI, 66%-74%], a sensitivity of 81% [95% CI, 69%-89%], and a specificity of 52% [95% CI, 41%-63%]. The positive likelihood ratio was 1.68, and the negative predictive value is 0.37. Factors that may influence variability in test results included the breath collection method, the patient's physiologic condition, the test environment, and the method of analysis. Considerable heterogeneity was observed among the studies owing to the difference in the sample size. SelectMDx appears to have moderate to good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating patients with clinically significant prostate cancer from people at high risk of developing prostate cancer. Higher-quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for clinically significant cancer are still needed.
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.