ArticleOncology letters2025
Value of circulating free DNA methylation in the diagnosis of esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Oncology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Liquid biopsy using circulating biomarkers has shown growing potential in cancer detection. The aim of the present study was to assess the application value of detecting the methylation level of circulating free (cf)DNA in the identification and diagnosis of esophageal cancer (EC), to lay a scientific foundation for its clinical application, and to provide statistically significant references for the detection process. A total of two researchers independently performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify all relevant studies on cfDNA in EC diagnosis as of July 25, 2024. A meta-analysis was performed using MetaDiSc 1.4, Stata 16.0 and RevMan 5.4 software. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic rate (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) values were determined. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 14 studies with a total of 3,936 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity, and PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC of cfDNA methylation in the diagnosis of EC were 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.89], 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95-0.99), 34.57 (95% CI, 18.04-63.44), 0.18 (95% CI, 0.12-0.25), 197.25 (95% CI, 104.53-372.20) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99), respectively. In conclusion, cfDNA methylation demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy for early-stage EC and may serve as a promising non-invasive screening tool.
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.