ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2024
The diagnostic accuracy of serum and plasma microRNAs in detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer: A systematic review and
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing plasma transcriptomics for non-invasive cancer biomarker identification: a comprehensive review.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- HypoxamiRs: the hidden architects of tissue adaptation in hypoxia.Cell death & disease · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies suggest a need for new diagnostic approaches for cervical cancer including microRNA technology. In this review, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of microRNAs in detecting cervical cancer and Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN). We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline for protocols (PRISMA-P). We searched for all articles in online databases and grey literature from 01st January 2012 to 16th August 2022. We used the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) to assess the risk of bias of included studies and then conducted a Random Effects Meta-analysis. We identified 297 articles and eventually extracted data from 24 studies. Serum/plasma concentration miR-205, miR-21, miR-192, and miR-9 showed highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC of 0.750, 0.689, 0.980, and 0.900, respectively) for detecting CIN from healthy controls. MicroRNA panels (miR-21, miR-125b and miR-370) and (miR-9, miR-10a, miR-20a and miR-196a and miR-16-2) had AUC values of 0.897 and 0.886 respectively for detecting CIN from healthy controls. For detection of cervical cancer from healthy controls, the most promising microRNAs were miR-21, miR-205, miR-192 and miR-9 (AUC values of 0.723, 0.960, 1.00, and 0.99 respectively). We report higher diagnostic accuracy of upregulated microRNAs, especially miR-205, miR-9, miR-192, and miR-21. This highlights their potential as stand-alone screening or diagnostic tests, either with others, in a new algorithm, or together with other biomarkers for purposes of detecting cervical lesions. Future studies could standardize quantification methods, and also study microRNAs in higher prevalence populations like in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Our review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022313275).
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.