↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic value of urinary survivin as a biomarker for bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic value of urinary survivin as a biomarker for bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies
Published in
World Journal of Urology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00345-018-2285-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhenzhen Liang, Rui Xin, Yinghui Yu, Rui Wang, Chunpeng Wang, Xin Liu

Abstract

This study is a meta-analysis and aims to determine the value of urinary survivin for detecting bladder cancer (BC) on the basis of preceding statistical performance and to compare their diagnostic value. Considering that the urinary survivin data were from both RNA and protein levels, the key words "bladder cancer" AND "survivin" and "bladder cancer" AND "survivin RNA" were used; and PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify relevant articles. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by QUADAS-2. Data were analyzed by STATA 12.0 and Meta-disc v.1.4 software package. A random-effects model was used and subgroup analysis was carried out to identify possible sources of heterogeneity. Nine articles for survivin protein test with 789 patients and 684 controls, and 12 articles for survivin RNA test with 880 patients and 922 controls were identified. The results showed that the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.73, 0.84), specificity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.79, 0.92) of the survivin protein test for bladder cancer, and the sensitivity and specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.79, 0.88) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89, 0.97) of the survivin RNA test. The AUC of the two approaches was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86, 0.91) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92, 0.96), respectively. The survivin protein and survivin RNA both had great potential as biomarkers for BC detection, and survivin RNA showed higher accuracy than survivin protein on BC diagnosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 22%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 10 56%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,016,439
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,223
of 2,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,205
of 328,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#33
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 328,975 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.