SynthesisDigestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Blood-Based Circulating Tumor DNA for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Introduction: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays are emerging as promising noninvasive tools for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of blood-based ctDNA assays for early CRC detection in asymptomatic adults.
methodsWe included prospective and cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy studies comparing ctDNA assays (mutation, methylation, or fragment-based) against colonoscopy or histopathology. Study-level 2 × 2 data were extracted to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Pooled estimates were derived using a Reitsma bivariate random-effects model. Secondary measures like diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were synthesized on transformed scales and back-transformed for reporting. Subgroup analyses by assay type and meta-regression explored heterogeneity. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2 and certainty of evidence with GRADE.
resultsTen studies met inclusion criteria, nine contributing to pooled estimates. The pooled sensitivity was 0.887 (95% CI, 0.848-0.920) and specificity 0.913 (95% CI, 0.898-0.928). A sensitivity analysis excluding studies with high risk of bias in patient selection yielded a comparable pooled sensitivity of 0.857 (95% CI, 0.794-0.904) and specificity of 0.900 (95% CI, 0.897-0.904). The SROC curve yielded an AUC of 0.97, indicating excellent discrimination. Secondary pooled metrics included a DOR of 83.9, PLR of 9.2, and NLR of 0.12. PPV was low (<20%), but NPV remained high (>99%) at screening prevalences of 0.5-2%. Subgroup analyses by assay type revealed no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy.
conclusionBlood-based ctDNA assays show high pooled sensitivity, specificity, and discrimination for CRC detection, but limited predictive value at screening prevalence and study heterogeneity constrain clinical adoption. Large, standardized, population-based studies are warranted. </p>.
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.