ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2026
Noncoding RNAs as novel diagnostic biomarkers for diabetic retinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsDiabetic retinopathy (DR), a frequent microvascular complication of diabetes, requires early detection to mitigate progression. Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) have emerged as promising diagnostic biomarkers. This meta-analysis evaluates their overall diagnostic accuracy for DR.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, to identify relevant studies published until August 2025. Data on study characteristics, quality, and diagnostic performance were pooled. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was explored via subgroup analysis and meta-regression; publication bias was assessed using Deck's funnel plot.
resultsTwenty-four studies from 17 articles (1,983 patients, 1,437 controls) were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated that ncRNAs achieved a sensitivity of 0.81 and a specificity of 0.84. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.89, whereas the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 4.96 and 0.23, respectively. LncRNAs demonstrated superior diagnostic performance compared to miRNAs (P = 0.03). Control type, region, and expression trend did not significantly influence outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed (I
conclusionCirculating ncRNAs, particularly lncRNAs, show high diagnostic potential for DR and represent promising noninvasive biomarkers for early screening and differential diagnosis.
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.