SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Circulating cell-free DNA methylation as biomarker for lung cancer detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A well-designed bridge probe with dual functions of recognition and transduction towards a universal LAMP system.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2026Article
- Integrating Clinical Features, Laboratory Biomarkers and Computed Tomography for the Discrimination of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Benign Pulmonary Diseases: A Clinical Prediction Model.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- Epigenetic profiling of circulating cell-free DNA for early detection and minimal residual disease assessment in lung cancer: a focus on DNA methylation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Shox2 and Rassf1a DNA methylation: diagnostic utility and association with clinical stage, histological progression and gene mutational landscape in lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Liquid biopsy biomarkers for cancer detection, treatment monitoring, and clinical outcome prediction.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- [Research Progress of TNMB Staging in Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2025Review
- Salivary genetic biomarkers of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy.Cancer cell international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lung cancer (LC) is the most incident malignancy and a leading cause of cancer-related fatalities. The lack of dissemination of effective screening tools hinders early detection, resulting in late-stage diagnosis, mostly associated with high mortality. Gene-specific methylation alterations detected in plasma or serum circulation cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) have been investigated as a possible screening tool. Thus, the main aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to critically assess published data on the use of ccfDNA methylation-based biomarkers for detection of LC. PubMed, including MEDLINE and Scopus databases, were systematically searched for eligible articles evaluating the diagnostic performance of ccfDNA methylation alterations in that setting. A bivariate random-effect model was employed to calculate pool estimated sensitivity and specificity. Accuracy subgroup analyses, according to histological subtype, stage, and smoker status were carried out. A total of 1961 articles were retrieved, of which 44 met inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis generated a pooled sensitivity of 54% (CI 95% 48-60%) and a pooled specificity of 86% (CI 95% 83-87%) for LC detection. The most frequently tested host-genome methylation markers were RASSF1 A, APC, SHOX2, SOX17, and HOXA9. Overall, methylation analysis of ccfDNA detects LC with high specificity but modest sensitivity. Further research is required to improve diagnostic performance, establish methodological standards and determine whether this might complement existing screening strategies to increase effectiveness. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42023408964.
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.