SynthesisPeerJ2022
MicroRNA-21 as a potential biomarker for detecting esophageal carcinoma in Asian populations: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- miR-21-5p inhibitor enhances the radiosensitivity of human cervical cancer cells via blocking CPEB3-mediated CDK1/cyclin B pathway.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Article
- Potential Diagnostic Utility of microRNAs in Gastrointestinal Cancers.Cancer management and research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: MicroRNA-21 (miR-21) is significantly expressed in a variety of cancers and could be used as a tumor biomarker. However, the results are varied, and no studies on the diagnostic usefulness of miR-21 in Asian esophageal cancer (EC) patients have been published. This meta-analysis was aimed at exploring whether miR-21 can be used as a diagnostic marker and assessing its effectiveness. Methods: The relevant literature was identified in six main databases: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Two researchers independently selected the literature based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.4, Meta-Disc 1.4 and STATA 15.1 software. In the end, 987 patients from 12 different studies were included. Quality evaluation of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to examine the risk of bias. Results: The pooled sensitivity (SEN) was 0.72 (95% CI [0.69-0.75]), the pooled specificity (SPE) was 0.78 (95% CI [0.75-0.81]), the pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) was 2.87 (95% CI [2.28-3.59]), the pooled negative likelihood ratio (NLR) was 0.36 (95% CI [0.31-0.43]), the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 10.00 (95% CI [7.73-12.95]), and the area under the curve 0.82 (95% CI [0.79-0.85]). A Deeks' funnel plot shows that there was no publication bias ( Conclusion: Our findings suggest miR-21 might be the potential biomarker for detecting EC in Asian populations, with a good diagnostic value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.