Evidence mapPaperPMID 41270025Full record

SynthesisPloS one2025

Circulating microRNAs as biomarkers for diabetic retinopathy stage identification: A DTA systematic review and meta-analysis.

Miriam Martínez-Santos, María Ybarra, Maria E Pires, Chiara Ceresoni, Elías Martínez-López, Javier Sancho-Pelluz, Maria Oltra, Jorge M Barcia

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Neuroprotection in Early Diabetic Retinal Disease Using Eyedrop Delivery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Miriam Martínez-SantosEscuela de Doctorado Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain.
María YbarraEscuela de Doctorado Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain.
Maria E PiresEscuela de Doctorado Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain.
Chiara CeresoniEscuela de Doctorado Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain.
Elías Martínez-LópezDepartment of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Doctor Peset, Valencia, Spain.
Javier Sancho-PelluzFacultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain.
Maria OltraFacultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6397-2702
Jorge M BarciaEscuela de Doctorado Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of circulating miRNAs in distinguishing between different diabetic retinopathy (DR) stages in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA-DTA and Cochrane guidelines. The protocol was not registeres and no external funding was received. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalTrials (up to January 2025) to identify diagnostic test accuracy studies on circulating miRNAs for DR. Eligible studies included three predefined comparisons: healthy controls versus DR (CTL vs DR), T2DM without DR versus DR (T2DM vs DR), and non-proliferative versus proliferative DR (NPDR vs PDR). DR diagnosis was confirmed using fundus fluorescein angiography and/or fundus examination. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with QUADAS-2; certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Data were synthesized using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis, with subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity. Data were synthesized via a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis, with subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity tests to explore heterogeneity.

resultsSixteen studies (1849 participants; 21 miRNAs) were included. For CTL vs DR (7 studies), pooled sensitivity was 77% (70-82) and specificity 84% (77-89), AUC 0.86 (0.82-0.89). For T2DM vs DR (9 studies), sensitivity was 81% (75-86) and specificity 80% (71-87), AUC 0.88 (0.84-0.91). For NPDR vs PDR (12 studies), sensitivity was 84% (79-87) and specificity 82% (76-88), AUC 0.90 (0.87-0.93). Heterogeneity arose chiefly from sample matrix, normalization strategies and inter-study expression trends. Patient selection posed the greatest bias risk.

conclusionsCirculating miRNAs exhibit promising diagnostic accuracy for differentiating among various stages of DR. However, future large, prospective studies in diverse populations and standardized pre-analytical protocols are required to confirm and translate these findings.

Indexed as

Circulating MicroRNADiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic RetinopathyBiomarkersHumansBiomarkersCirculating MicroRNA

Identifiers

PMID41270025
PMCPMC12637958

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.