SynthesisPloS one2025
Diagnostic value of long noncoding RNAs as biomarkers for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnkylosing spondylitis (AS) presents as a debilitating form of arthritis with potential for severe damage. In chronic cases, patients may experience progression to ankylosis and spinal immobility, significantly diminishing their quality of life. Given these challenges, there is a pressing need to explore novel diagnostic targets. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic potential of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) for AS.
methodsThe search encompassed various databases including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Hinari. Analysis of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) was carried out using Stata 17.0 software, employing a random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed through the Cochran-Q test and I2 statistic tests, followed by subgroup analyses to delve into primary sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using Deeks' funnel plot, while Fagan's nomogram was used to evaluate the clinical utility of lncRNAs for AS. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness and reliability of the findings.
resultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized data from 11 articles, of which 6 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC of lncRNAs for diagnosing AS were calculated as 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.88), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), 4.2 (95% CI, 1.64-10.77), 0.23 (95% CI, 0.17-0.32), 18.1 (95% CI, 6.39-51.24), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed that lncRNAs identified in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBCs), those showing upregulation, studies utilizing β-actin as the internal reference control, and research involving AS patients from China demonstrated enhanced diagnostic accuracy for AS.
conclusionsIn conclusion, the existing evidence indicates that lncRNAs have substantial diagnostic value in predicting AS and can serve as effective non-invasive markers for the condition. However, the results should undergo further validation through well-designed longitudinal studies with larger sample sizes in the future to enhance their reliability and generalizability.
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.