SynthesisAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2026
Diagnostic Efficacy of Serum Biomarkers for Oral Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 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
aimEvaluating Diagnostic Ability Of Various Serum Biomarkers For Oral Cancer (OSCC).
methodsReview was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) checklist, and the review protocol was registered under PROSPERO (CRD42024625802). Databases were searched from January 2000 to December 2024 to identify the diagnostic potential of various serum biomarkers. Quality assessment was evaluated based on the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool, and meta-analysis was performed in Meta-Disc 1.4 software and Review Manager 5.3 for pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+PLR), negative likelihood ratio (-NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves.
resultsTwenty-three studies were included in the review, with data evaluated from 3,309 subjects (diseased - 2,069 and 1,240 - controls). The included studies showed a moderate to high risk of bias. Various biomarkers such as CYFRA 21-1, E-cadherin, interleukins (IL-6, IL-8), protein peaks, matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-9), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), galectins (1, 3), and various RNA biomarkers were evaluated, belonging to the protein and microRNA classes of biomarkers. It was found that these biomarkers had sensitivity and specificity ranging from 16% to 94% and 37% to 100%, respectively, with the highest accuracy shown by IL-8, which had a mean sensitivity and specificity of 86.5% and 98%. The highest AUC was observed for CYFRA 21-1 (0.53), suggesting that the overall diagnostic accuracy of these serum biomarkers is moderate to good in diagnosing the desired condition.
conclusionSerum biomarkers are a valid tool and, overall, have good diagnostic potential in identifying the target condition. They can be used as an alternative adjunct to histopathology. Serum biomarkers also have significant potential in predicting and diagnosing disease outcomes, and they can improve the quality and reach of early screening and detection of OSCC. Serum biomarkers can be employed for early diagnosis and prompt treatment under the secondary level of prevention.
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.