ReviewOncoTargets and therapy2026
Diagnostic Performance of Circulating miRNA-92a and Related Circulating miRNA Panels for Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in OncoTargets and therapy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide and the third most frequently diagnosed malignancy. Circulating microRNAs, particularly miRNA-92a, have gained prominence as non-invasive biomarkers due to their stability in biological fluids and disease-specific expression patterns. Objective: This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of circulating miRNA-92a for non-invasive colorectal cancer detection, both as an individual biomarker and in combination with other circulating miRNAs, including markers that are either members of the miRNA-92a family or unrelated miRNA candidates. Methods: This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251070402). A systematic search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar was conducted for articles published up to May 2025 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible articles evaluated circulating miRNA92a for CRC diagnosis, used appropriate reference standards, and reported extractable sensitivity and specificity data. A bivariate random-effects model in STATA/BE v18.0 was used to generate pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, logDOR, and AUC. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2, and publication bias was examined with Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. Results: Twenty-two studies from sixteen articles, involving 1918 CRC patients and 1446 healthy controls, were included. Circulating miRNA-92a and miRNA-92a-related circulating panels demonstrated pooled sensitivity and specificity of 86% and 91%. Overall diagnostic performance was high, with an AUC of 0.87. The logDOR was 3.71, with a pooled PLR of 18.54 and an NLR of 0.38. Subgroup analyses showed comparable accuracy between singlemarker and panel-based assays, and serum samples yielded more consistent results. QUADAS-2 indicated acceptable methodological quality, and no significant publication bias was detected (p = 0.06). Conclusion: Circulating miRNA-92a demonstrates superior diagnostic performance and considerable potential as a non-invasive biomarker for early CRC detection. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to standardize testing protocols and confirm their clinical applicability.
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.