SynthesisThe Korean journal of internal medicine2026
LncRNA as a diagnostic marker for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is categorized as an autoimmune disorder characterized by the absence of a definitive cure. In this investigation, we executed a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis to ascertain the diagnostic efficacy of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in the identification of RA.
methodsOur survey involved relevant studies published in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library search engines. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated, as well as positive likelihood ratios (PLRs), negative likelihood ratios (NLRs), and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs). The operating characteristics of the overall receiver were plotted, and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated.
resultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis incorporated 34 studies involving a total of 1,535 participants-comprising 853 individuals diagnosed with RA and 682 control subjects without the disease. The pooled specificity, sensitivity, NLR, PLR, and DOR were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.92), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.91), 0.15 (95% CI: 0.11-0.22), 7.51 (95% CI: 5.39-10.46), and 49.06 (95% CI: 30.31-79.41), respectively, and the AUC = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96). Subgroup analysis was performed according to lncRNA expression in RA, sample size, sample type, RNA extraction, and control group type.
conclusionThis meta-analysis reveals that lncRNAs may serve as powerful biomarkers for RA. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides the first evidence showing the potential value of using lncRNAs as a diagnostic tool for RA.
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.