↓ Skip to main content

Predictive power of circulating miRNAs in detecting colorectal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Tumor Biology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Predictive power of circulating miRNAs in detecting colorectal cancer
Published in
Tumor Biology, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13277-014-2872-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Zeng, Yanhui Tu, Yufeng Zhu, Zhongli Wang, Chi Li, Lijun Lao, Gang Wu

Abstract

Many studies indicate that circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) could play important roles in screening human cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the conflicting results on the accuracy of miRNA detection lead us to conduct this meta-analysis to access the predictive value of miRNAs for predicting CRC. Eligible studies were identified from the Medline, Embase, CNKI, and Web of Science by the search strategies and screening criterion. We used random effects models to calculate the pooled results from studies. The summary receiver operator characteristic curve (SROC) and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) were used to estimate the predictive accuracy. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to analyze potential sources of heterogeneity. We used Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test to test publication bias. This meta-analysis included a total of 24 studies from 19 articles, including 1558 CRC patients and 1085 controls. The overall pooled results from the meta-analysis were as follows: sensitivity was 0.81 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.85), specificity was 0.84 (95 % CI 0.78-0.88), PLR was 5.0 (95 % CI 3.5-6.9), NLR was 0.22 (95 % CI 0.18-0.28), DOR was 23 (95 % CI 14-37), and AUC was 0.89 (95 % CI 0.86-0.91). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses demonstrated that multiple miRNAs (AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.92, 0.84, and 0.87, respectively) had a higher predictive accuracy than single miRNA (AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.84, 0.78, and 0.78, respectively). In addition, we found that serum can be a better matrix for miRNA assays in screening CRC compared with plasma. In summary, our data suggests that circulating miRNAs, particularly multiple miRNAs, which have higher accuracy than single miRNAs, are excellent biomarker for screening CRC with good sensitivity and noninvasive nature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 32%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 7 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 December 2014.
All research outputs
#20,247,117
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,834
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,995
of 353,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#104
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 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 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. 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 353,184 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 166 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.