↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis accuracy of PCA3 level in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Brazilian Journal of Urology, October 2020
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnosis accuracy of PCA3 level in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Published in
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, October 2020
DOI 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0360
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhiqiang Qin, Jianxiang Yao, Luwei Xu, Zheng Xu, Yuzheng Ge, Liuhua Zhou, Feng Zhao, Ruipeng Jia

Abstract

The diagnostic value and suitability of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) have been inconsistent in previous studies. Thus, the aim of the present meta-analysis was performed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of PCA3 for PCa. A meta-analysis was performed to search relevant studies using online databases EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science published until February 1st, 2019. Ultimately, 65 studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis with 8.139 cases and 14.116 controls. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR+), negative likelihood ratios (LR-), and other measures of PCA3 were pooled and determined to evaluate the diagnostic rate of PCa by the random-effect model. With PCA3, the pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR-, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for predicting significant PCa were 0.68 (0.64-0.72), 0.72 (0.68-0.75), 2.41 (2.16-2.69), 0.44 (0.40-0.49), respectively. Besides, the summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and 95% CIs for PCA3 was 5.44 (4.53-6.53). In addition, the area under summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves and 95% CIs was 0.76 (0.72-0.79). The major design deficiencies of included studies were differential verification bias, and a lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results of this meta-analysis suggested that PCA3 was a non-invasive method with the acceptable sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of PCa, to distinguish between patients and healthy individuals. To validate the potential applicability of PCA3 in the diagnosis of PCa, more rigorous studies were needed to confirm these conclusions.

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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Professor 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 18 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 24 55%
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 22 January 2020.
All research outputs
#22,771,990
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#624
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#373,473
of 432,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 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 726 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 432,252 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.