SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Diagnostic value of integrating salivary and blood miRNAs for pancreatic cancer detection.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most lethal malignancies due to its late-stage diagnosis and limited treatment options. Conventional diagnostic methods, such as imaging and tissue biopsy, often lack sensitivity in early-stage detection and are invasive, limiting their widespread application. There is an urgent need for non-invasive, highly accurate biomarkers to facilitate early diagnosis and improve patient outcomes. Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) have emerged as promising liquid biopsy biomarkers, offering the potential for early detection through minimally invasive methods. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of blood- and saliva-derived miRNAs in detecting pancreatic cancer. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases identified 350 relevant studies. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 27 studies with 1,496 patients were included. These studies contained 168 sub-studies, each assessing the diagnostic potential of individual miRNAs. Quality assessment was conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were analyzed to determine diagnostic performance. Results: Blood-derived miRNAs demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and specificity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91), while saliva-derived miRNAs exhibited slightly higher sensitivity at 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90) and specificity at 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.89). The combined analysis yielded a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84-0.89) and specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.83-0.88). The area under the curve (AUC) for blood-derived miRNAs was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94), whereas saliva-derived miRNAs achieved an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95). The combined analysis resulted in an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94). Diagnostic odds ratios were 33.40 (95% CI: 17.88-62.37) for blood-derived miRNAs, 39.94 (95% CI: 28.66-55.67) for saliva-derived miRNAs, and 37.04 (95% CI: 27.66-49.60) for the combined dataset. Conclusion: Both blood- and saliva-derived miRNAs exhibit strong diagnostic performance for pancreatic cancer, with saliva-derived miRNAs demonstrating slightly higher accuracy. These findings support the potential of circulating miRNAs as non-invasive biomarkers that could address the current limitations in pancreatic cancer diagnosis. Further large-scale, well-controlled studies are warranted to confirm these results and optimize their clinical application.
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.