SynthesisPloS one2024
Meta-analysis of the accuracy for RASSF1A methylation in bronchial aspirates for the diagnosis of lung cancer.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo establish the diagnostic accuracy of RASSF1A (Ras association domain family 1 isoform) methylation using bronchial aspirates as an auxiliary method for diagnosing lung cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsStudies published prior to October 30, 2022, were retrieved from the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Wan Fang databases using the keywords "lung cancer", "RASSF1A", "methylation", and "bronchial aspirates". A fixed or random effect model was used to calculate the combined sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR), negative LR, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), along with the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the area under the curve (AUC) with Q index. The threshold effect was defined by using the Spearman correlation coefficient, and the Deeks funnel plot was generated to evaluate publication bias.
resultsAmong the 12 trials that met the inclusion criteria, a total of 2388 participants were involved. The pooled results for the diagnosis of lung cancer were as follows, when compared to the pathological diagnosis: sensitivity of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.45-0.50), specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97), positive LR of 12.18 (95% CI: 8.96-16.55), negative LR of 0.56 (95% CI: 0.52-0.61), DOR of 24.05 (95% CI: 17.29-33.47), and AUC of 0.78 (Q index = 0.72), respectively. The sensitivity of the RASSF1A methylation assay was relatively low in a detailed subgroup analysis, fluctuating between 0.39 and 0.90, indicating a limitation in its diagnostic value for lung cancer. The RASSF1A methylation assay, on the other hand, demonstrated excellent specificity, suggesting a high exclusion value. Of note, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC for small cell lung cancer were 0.90 (0.84-0.94), 0.95 (0.94-0.97), 249.5 (103.94-598.8), and 0.98, respectively, showing that RASSF1A methylation was a promising biomarker for diagnosing small cell lung cancer with both high diagnostic and exclusion value. Furthermore, RASSF1A methylation using bronchial washings and bronchial aspirates showed a high AUC of 0.998 and 0.93, respectively, indicating excellent diagnostic performance.
conclusionsThe methylation of RASSF1A in bronchial aspirates demonstrated a high level of diagnostic accuracy and has the potential to be a valuable supplementary diagnostic method, especially for identifying small cell lung cancer.
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.