SynthesisFrontiers in microbiology2025
CRIPSR-Cas for hepatitis virus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Synthesis in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. 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.
- Development of a Sensitive and Specific RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a Assay for Intrahepatic Quantification of HBV cccDNA.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- CRISPR-based point-of-care diagnostics for viral hepatitis: from molecular design to clinical implementation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Hepatitis viruses pose a significant global health challenge, necessitating accurate and efficient diagnostic methods. The CRISPR-Cas system, renowned for gene editing, shows potential tool in virus detection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CRISPR-Cas-based tests for hepatitis viruses, aiming to provide evidence for their effectiveness in clinical settings. Methods: Studies from Web of Science, PubMed, and CNKI were analyzed. A bivariate random-effects model was employed to compute pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Additionally, the methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Results: Following a rigorous screening process, 14 studies meeting our inclusion criteria were selected from an initial pool of 657 studies. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the CRISPR-Cas system in hepatitis virus detection showed high sensitivity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.95-1.00) and specificity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.93-1.00) with SROC area 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00). However, considering the notable heterogeneity among the included studies, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted. These analyses revealed that the type of hepatitis virus detected and the format of the final result presentation could be potential sources of this heterogeneity. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the high diagnostic accuracy of CRISPR-Cas system in detecting hepatitis viruses. However, conclusions are limited by study number and quality. Therefore, more high-quality data are still needed to support this conclusion.
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.