ReviewThe journal of liquid biopsy2025
Liquid biopsy biomarkers in cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The journal of liquid biopsy, 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
Background/objectives: Liquid biopsy biomarkers are emerging as vital tools for cancer screening and diagnosis, offering a noninvasive and accurate approach to early malignancy detection. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of circulating biomarkers in cervical cancer (CC). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across the Cochrane Library, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, identifying 130 studies, of which 11 met the inclusion criteria. Data on true and false positives and negatives were extracted to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool, while publication bias was assessed via Deeks' funnel plot. Results: The meta-analysis included 1301 patients, 670 healthy controls, and 438 individuals with benign or precancerous lesions. Pooled sensitivity was 0.68 (95 % CI: 0.65-0.70), and specificity was 0.84 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.86). The DOR was 61.10 (95 % CI: 32.20-115.9), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95. Most studies demonstrated a low risk of bias, and no significant publication bias was observed (P = 0.06). Plasma-based liquid biopsies and miRNA biomarkers exhibited superior diagnostic performance. Conclusions: These findings suggest that liquid biopsy biomarkers may substantially enhance the accuracy of cervical cancer detection, representing a promising strategy for early diagnosis.
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.