SynthesisBiomarkers in medicine2025
Diagnostic valuation of MMP family members as biomarkers for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Biomarkers in medicine, 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.
- A novel multivariate framework for functional gene networks enrichment analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
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
backgroundThere are numerous controversies surrounding the diagnosis of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) in pancreatic cancer (PC). Consequently, this study conducts the first comprehensive meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic performance of MMP family members in PC, highlight potential biomarkers, and investigate sources of heterogeneity.
methodArticles on the MMP family and PC diagnosis were retrieved from PubMed and Web of Science. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using sensitivity (SEN) and specificity (SPE). Threshold effects, heterogeneity (via meta-regression and subgroup analyses), and result robustness (via sensitivity analysis) were evaluated. Publication bias was examined using Deeks' funnel plot.
resultThis meta-analysis included 48 studies from 23 articles, covering 12 types of MMP. The aggregated SEN, SPE, and area under the curve (AUC) for MMPs in diagnosing PC ranged from 0.61 to 0.76, 0.66 to 0.78, and 0.7273 to 0.8840, respectively. Meta-regression identified sample type as a major contributor to heterogeneity, with tissue-based MMPs showing markedly superior diagnostic performance compared to serum or plasma-based assays. Overall, MMPs showed potential diagnostic value, but their accuracy remains moderate and requires further validation in larger, well-designed studies.
conclusionMMPs represent potential candidates for PC diagnosis, but current evidence is insufficient for clinical application, requiring further prospective studies.
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.