4.6 Article

Long Noncoding RNAs Serve as Potential Diagnostic Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 611-619

出版社

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/jca.28780

关键词

long noncoding RNA; colorectal cancer; meta-analysis; diagnosis; biomarker

类别

资金

  1. Natural Science Research of Anhui Education Department Key Project [KJ2018A0246]
  2. Key Scientific Research Project of Wannan Medical College [WK2018ZF01]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province [1708085MH202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mounting evidence has indicated that long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are promising candidates for tumor diagnosis and prognosis. Nonetheless, the significance of lncRNAs in colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis remains to be clarified. Here, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the utility of lncRNAs as diagnostic indicators for CRC. Materials and Methods: Pertinent studies were searched using PubMed, PMC, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EMBASE database up to September 2018. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy-2. Subgroup analyses by sample size and publication year were conducted. Threshold effect and meta-regression were performed to find the origin of heterogeneity. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata and Meta-Disc. Results: A total of 19 studies with 3,114 individuals were enrolled in the current analysis. The overall sensitivity and specificity of lncRNAs in the diagnosis of CRC were 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.87] and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.89), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 5.11 (95% CI: 3.57-7.31), and the pooled negative likelihood ratio was 0.21 (95% CI: 0.15-0.28). The overall area under the curve was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 24.57 (95% CI: 14.67-41.17). Conclusions: The accuracy of lncRNAs for CRC diagnosis is high, and lncRNAs could be functioned as promising candidates for CRC diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据