ArticleEJIFCC2024
The Feasibility for Screening for Ovarian Cancer.
Article in EJIFCC, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The majority of the high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) cases are diagnosed late, preventing effective treatment and therapy. We examine the feasibility of using EVA (Early oVArian cancer), a new molecular test for early HGSOC detection. Methods: Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of EVA with previously reported ovarian cancer tests, including CA125, was made, and the positive and negative predictive values of the tests were calculated as a measure of usefulness in the clinic. Results: The positive predictive value of EVA and CA125 was 8.6% and 6.8% respectively, which was calculated based on the disease prevalence of 0.5%. The negative predictive value was 99.9% in both cases. Conclusions: EVA and CA125 are unlikely to provide a meaningful population screening method for HGSOC in women at risk, since the predictive values would drive women not to perform these tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39247660PMC11380147What 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.