ReviewFuture science OA2025
The diagnostic value of the liquid biopsy in the colon cancer.
Review in Future science OA, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe utility of liquid biopsy in the screening and the follow-up of many cancers and mainly CRC has been reported by many authors. Our aim was to assess its diagnostic yield as a surrogate of tissue biopsy in CRC.
methodsThe authors performed a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA recommendations. Publication bias was evaluated using the Funnel plot followed by the Egger regression test. Meta-disc 2.0 was used. In order to assess the heterogeneity, the Cochrane Chi 2 test (Q-test), Tau2 and 95% prediction interval (PI) were calculated (CMA version 4).
resultsOur results revealed a high diagnostic potential of the liquid biopsy in CRC with a pooled SEN, SPE, PLR, NLR and DOR accounting respectively for 77%, 94.3%, 6.85, 0.26 and 26.467. The AUC accounted for 0.97. Based on the prediction interval analysis, we observed an important heterogeneity. The meta-regression analysis revealed the sample nature (plasma), the biomarker used (cfDNA) and the intake of a preoperative treatment as potential moderators.
conclusionEven if our results highlighted a high diagnostic potential of liquid biopsy in the diagnosis of CRC, the heterogeneity observed reinforces the need to harmonize the use of particular samples, the biomarker assessed and to make attention to the treatment intake before surgery.
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.