↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Circulating VEGF as a biomarker for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a systematic review and a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Circulating VEGF as a biomarker for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a systematic review and a meta-analysis
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/ott.s83616
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bin Liang, Qun He, Liansheng Zhong, Shaocheng Wang, Zhongcheng Pan, Tianjiao Wang, Yujie Zhao

Abstract

VEGF is a frequently studied angiogenic factor in ovarian cancer (OC), and is considered to have an important role in the progression of OC. However, its diagnostic value has not been widely accepted because the conclusions are inconsistent and even conflicting. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic value of VEGF in OC. A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WANFANG databases for relevant published articles (the last search update was November 18, 2014). The diagnosis sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were pooled by Meta DiSc 1.4 software. A total of ten studies with 1,131 subjects were finally included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.67 (0.63-0.73), 0.78 (0.75-0.81), 3.08 (6.36-12.22), 0.39 (0.29-0.51), 9.10 (5.43-45.25), and 0.8175, respectively. Furthermore, to explore the sources of heterogeneity, we conducted subgroup analyses based on ethnicity and sample size. The diagnostic accuracy of VEGF was higher in an Asian population than in a Caucasian population. A similar finding was found in subgroups with the smaller sample size (<100 subjects). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that VEGF has moderate diagnostic accuracy for OC. Considering our limitations and the heterogeneity among our selected studies, larger, well-designed prospective and multicenter validation studies are needed to evaluate the diagnostic value of serum VEGF for OC.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Unspecified 1 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,355,485
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#378
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,993
of 278,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#10
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,911 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.