SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2025
Adherence to STARD guidelines in miRNA diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccumulating evidence demonstrates that miRNAs exhibit enhanced diagnostic sensitivity and specificity compared to the conventional hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) biomarker alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), particularly showing promising clinical utility in early-stage HCC detection. However, insufficient transparency in methodology reporting compromises the validity assessment of these findings and hinders their translational applications. In this study, we investigated the adherence to the STARD criteria in studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of miRNA for liver cancer. In addition, the quality of reporting was examined to identify factors influencing the quality of reporting.
methodA comprehensive search strategy was performed on the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, as of March 30, 2023. Clinical trials investigating the diagnostic value of miRNA for HCC diagnosis were included in the analysis. The eligible studies were checked against adherence to the STARD criteria. Factors determining quality of studies were evaluated through subgroup analyses. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (varsion25.0).
resultsSixty-two eligible studies, all published between 2010 and 2022, were eventually included in the final analysis. The results revealed a moderate overall adherence to STARD 2015, with an average of 12.1 (52.6%) of the 23 items reported. Subgroup analysis revealed that adherence to the STARD 2015 varied among countries (USA 58.7%;Egypt 46.5%)(p<0.05).
conclusionThe quality of studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs in HCC was average and did not increase after the publication of STARD 2015. Our findings rise awareness regarding the need to improve STARD standards, implying that more journals need to include STARD standards for relevant manuscripts. In addition, editorial and peer approval procedures should adopt measures that will aim to improve reporting quality.
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.