SynthesisBMC women's health2026
Diagnostic value of MiRNAs in endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, microRNAs have attracted increasing attention for their potential diagnostic and prognostic value across various diseases. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs as a novel class of non-invasive biomarkers for endometriosis.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies investigating the diagnostic value of miRNAs in EMs. Eligible studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria. A bivariate random-effects model was used to pool key diagnostic parameters, including summary sensitivity (SSEN), summary specificity (SSPE), summary positive likelihood ratio (SPLR), summary negative likelihood ratio (SNLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.
resultsA total of 118 diagnostic datasets from 30 studies were included, involving 93 distinct miRNAs and 3,274 participants. Pooled estimates indicated moderate–good diagnostic accuracy: sensitivity ≈ 0.82 (95% CI: 0.79–0.84), specificity ≈ 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76–0.82), and AUC ≈ 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84–0.90). Additionally, subgroup analysis revealed comparable diagnostic performance between upregulated and downregulated miRNAs. miRNAs demonstrated moderate–good diagnostic accuracy in multi-miRNA panels compared to those in single miRNA.
conclusionmiRNAs show promise as non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers for endometriosis, with robust sensitivity and specificity demonstrated across multiple studies. miRNAs demonstrated moderate–good diagnostic accuracy (AUC ≈ 0.87), with multi-miRNA panels performing best. However, due to considerable heterogeneity among existing studies, further high-quality research is warranted to identify optimal miRNA panels for 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.