SynthesisBiomolecules & biomedicine2025
The diagnostic accuracy of exosomes for glioma: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Biomolecules & biomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The updated role of exosomes in cancer diagnosis and therapy.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Engineered exosomes for targeted glioma therapy: overcoming the blood-brain barrier with nature-inspired nanocarriers.Discover nano · 2026Review
- Microcargos with Megaeffects: A Literature Review of Immunomodulatory, Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Dimensions of Exosomal MicroRNAs in Glioblastoma Multiforme.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2025Review
- Harnessing the power of exosomes in leukemia: from molecular messengers to clinical applications.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Enhanced magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomics predicts CD40LG expression and survival in high-grade gliomas: a retrospective study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- The diagnostic performance of machine learning-based FFRCT for coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glioma is one of the most prevalent primary intracranial tumors, and biomarker testing offers a non-invasive modality with high diagnostic efficiency. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of exosomes as biomarkers for glioma. We included 16 studies on exosomes as biomarkers for gliomas. The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) for 25 biomarkers across these 16 studies were as follows: 82% (95% CI: 0.77-0.86), 91% (95% CI: 0.86-0.94), 9.10 (95% CI: 5.64-14.68), 0.20 (95% CI: 0.16-0.25), 45.94 (95% CI: 25.40-83.09), and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94), respectively. Meta-regression indicated that biomarker analysis, biomarker type, and sample size may be sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis suggested that ultracentrifugation (UC) was a better method for extracting exosomes. miRNA and other RNA groups (sncRNA, lncRNA, circRNA) provided higher SEN (0.88 vs. 0.84 vs. 0.78) compared to proteins. This study demonstrates the superior diagnostic efficacy of exosomes as biomarkers for gliomas, with high accuracy in diagnosing gliomas.
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.