SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
AVS-referenced diagnostic performance of
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Differentiation of unilateral from bilateral primary aldosteronism (PA) is crucial for identifying patients who are likely to be cured by adrenalectomy. This review evaluated the adrenal vein sampling (AVS)-referenced performance of Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for relevant articles published up to May 2025. This review followed a prespecified population, index test, comparator, outcome, and study design (PICOS) framework. Using Meta-DiSc v.1.4 and Stata software, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios were pooled. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Hu et al., 2023 was retained only for qualitative description and excluded from the primary quantitative synthesis because of its clear outlying influence; thus, 11 studies were included in the main pooled synthesis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67-0.82) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.74-0.87), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 4.05 and 0.31, respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 12.59 (95% CI: 7.21-22.01). Conclusion: Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251067457, identifier CRD420251067457.
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.