Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30410873›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2018

Diagnostic Value of lncRNAs as Biomarker in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

Shilian Chen, Yaqin Zhang, Xuan Wu, Chaoyang Zhang, Guancheng Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. BiomarkersWorld journal of clinical cases · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shilian ChenKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis of the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion of Chinese Ministry of Education, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6856-5687
Yaqin ZhangKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis of the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion of Chinese Ministry of Education, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xuan WuKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis of the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion of Chinese Ministry of Education, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Chaoyang ZhangKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis of the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion of Chinese Ministry of Education, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2621-5803
Guancheng LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis of the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion of Chinese Ministry of Education, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6063-7407

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) display aberrantly high or low expression in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and have the potential to serve as diagnostic biomarkers. Here, we accomplished a meta-analysis based on current studies to assess the diagnostic value of lncRNAs in HCC. Eligible literatures were systematically selected from PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase (up to January 20, 2018) according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. QUADAS scale was applied to the quality assessment of the included studies. Statistical analysis was performed through bivariate random-effects models based on R software. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Begg's and Egger's tests. 16 articles containing 2,268 cancer patients and 2,574 controls were selected for the final meta-analysis. Random effect model was used for the meta-analysis due to significant between-study heterogeneity. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 0.87(0.838-0.897), 0.829(0.794-0.86), 23.085(20.575-25.901), 4.533(4.239-4.847), and 0.176(0.166-0.186), respectively. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was conducted to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of lncRNAs in HCC with the area under curve (AUC) of 0.915. Subgroups analysis showed that lncRNA profiling, sample size, specimen types, and ethnicity might be the sources of heterogeneity. No publication bias existed according to funnel plot symmetry and Begg's (

Indexed as

Area Under CurveAsian PeopleBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, HepatocellularHumansLikelihood FunctionsLiver NeoplasmsOdds RatioRNA, Long NoncodingROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorRNA, Long Noncoding

Identifiers

PMID30410873
PMCPMC6205093

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.