SynthesisFrontiers in microbiology2024
Circulating free DNA as a diagnostic marker for echinococcosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- High efficacy of an in-house antigen B ELISA for diagnosing human cystic echinococcosis compared with a commercial kit and a cell-free DNA assay.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing hydatid cysts diagnosis utilizing cell-free DNA as a sensitive biomarker forHelminthologia · 2026Article
- CRISPR/Cas12a-RCA enables ultrasensitive detection of circulating free DNA for noninvasive diagnosis of echinococcosis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Intracellular Parasitic Infections Caused byVaccines · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Echinococcosis is a chronic zoonotic disease caused by tapeworms of the genus Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WeiPu databases up to 17 January 2024, for relevant studies. All analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3, Meta-DiSc 1.4, Stata 17.0, and R 4.3.1 software. The sensitivity, specificity, and other accuracy indicators of circulating free DNA for the diagnosis of echinococcosis were summarized. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to identify sources of heterogeneity. Results: A total of 7 studies included 218 patients with echinococcosis and 214 controls (156 healthy controls, 32 other disease controls (non-hydatid patients), and 26 non-study-targeted echinococcosis controls were included). Summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of cfDNA in the diagnosis of echinococcosis were as follows: sensitivity (SEN) of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.45-0.56); specificity (SPE) of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99); positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 11.82 (95% CI: 6.74-20.74); negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.41-0.80); diagnostic ratio (DOR) of 36.63 (95% CI: 13.75-97.59); and area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-1.00). Conclusion: Existing evidence indicates that the combined specificity of circulating cfDNA for echinococcosis is high. However, the combined sensitivity performance is unsatisfactory due to significant inter-study heterogeneity. To strengthen the validity and accuracy of our findings, further large-scale prospective studies are required.Systematic review registrationThe systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO [CRD42023454158]. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
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.