| Title |
Urine microRNAs as biomarkers for bladder cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s86908 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yidong Cheng, Xiaheng Deng, Xiao Yang, Pengchao Li, Xiaolei Zhang, Peng Li, Jun Tao, Qiang Lu, Zengjun Wang |
| Abstract |
The diagnostic value of microRNA (miRNA) detection in patients with bladder cancer (BCa) is controversial. We performed a diagnostic meta-analysis to evaluate current evidence on the use of miRNA assays to diagnose BCa. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before March 31, 2015. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the overall test performance. Subgroup analyses were used to explore the between-study heterogeneity. Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test was used to test publication bias. We applied the software of RevMan 5.2 and Stata 11.0 to the meta-analysis. A total of 23 studies from nine articles were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 719 patients and 494 controls. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.80) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.70-0.80), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 3.03 (95% CI, 2.50-3.67); negative likelihood ratio was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.27-0.42); and diagnostic odds ratio was 9.07 (95% CI, 6.35-12.95). The pooled AUC was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78-0.85). Subgroup analyses indicated that the multiple miRNAs assays and urine supernatant assays showed high accuracies in diagnosing BCa. The miRNA assays may serve as potential noninvasive diagnostic tool for the detection of BCa. However, the clinical application of miRNA assays for BCa diagnosis still needs further validation by large prospective studies. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,288,585
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,969
of 2,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,874
of 264,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#66
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,933 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.