SynthesisJournal of cardiovascular translational research2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Circulating MicroRNAs for Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) are promising non-invasive biomarkers for coronary artery disease (CAD). We conducted an updated meta-analysis evaluating their diagnostic accuracy through December 2025. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched for diagnostic accuracy studies of circulating miRNAs in angiography-confirmed CAD. Accuracy was pooled using a bivariate random-effects model yielding sensitivity, specificity, and SROC-AUC. Twenty-four studies (64 comparisons, 3,879 participants) were included. Pooled sensitivity was 0.777 (95% CI: 0.737-0.816), specificity 0.832 (95% CI: 0.801-0.862), and AUC 0.872. Multi-miRNA panels outperformed single miRNAs (AUC 0.901 vs. 0.868). Substantial heterogeneity was present (Sensitivity; I²=92.1%; τ²=0.738); however, τ² remained substantial (sens:0.738, tfpr:0.434), indicating persistent heterogeneity; Holling-adjusted I² (5.1-7.7%) reflects sensitivity to study precision, not resolved heterogeneity. Meta-regression identified panel-based assay type and plasma sample source as modifiable drivers. Circulating miRNAs show moderate-to-good diagnostic accuracy for CAD as investigational complementary biomarkers. Prospective validation with standardized protocols is required before clinical deployment. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD420261279673. Not Applicable (As this is a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and not a Clinical Trial).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42823543What 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.