SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2025
Salivary metabolites for pancreatic cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic cancer (PC), a malignancy with poor prognosis, demands innovative diagnostic strategies for early detection. Current methods, such as endoscopic ultrasound and blood-based biomarkers, face limitations in accessibility, invasiveness, and accuracy, particularly for early-stage disease. Saliva, a non-invasive biofluid enriched with metabolites and proteins, offers promise as a diagnostic medium.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, LIVIVO, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and the Google Scholar search engine. The search had no restrictions on language or publication date. The database search was performed in September 2024 and updated in December 2024 using PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Methodological quality was assessed using Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Statistical analysis was performed, and pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) calculated.
resultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis include five studies published between 2010 and 2024. 7,799 records were screened, yielding five studies (4,328 subjects: 854 patients with PC, 3,474 controls) for inclusion in our analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for salivary metabolites were 0.784 (95% CI: 0.769–0.797) and 0.793 (95% CI: 0.764–0.819), respectively, with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 15.79 (95% CI: 12.61–19.76) and an AUC of 0.867. Multi-metabolite panels significantly outperformed single biomarkers (DOR: 101.68, 95% CI: 24.79-417.08 vs. 14.29, 95% CI: 11.59-17.62), underscoring the value of combinatorial approaches. Subgroup analyses revealed pathway-specific variations, with nervous system-related pathways showing the highest DOR (24.58, 95% CI: 12.41-48.69) and polyamine pathways the lowest (8.96, 95% CI: 5.36-14.98).
conclusionThis study highlights saliva’s potential as a complementary tool in PC diagnosis and in bridging the gap between experimental biomarkers and clinical utility.
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.