Dataset Information

The value of biomarkers in colorectal cancer: Protocol for an overview and a secondary analysis of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world, with 694,000 deaths each year. Despite improvements in treatment strategies in recent years, the overall survival rate of CRC is still very low and the survival rate is highly dependent on the stage at the time of diagnosis. Some biomarkers have shown great potential for early screening of CRC and some have been tested in systematic reviews (SRs). However, the quality of these SRs remains unclear and these SRs did not clarify which biomarker is the optimal diagnostic test. This overview will evaluate the methodological quality of available SRs and compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers in order to find the best biomarker for diagnosing CRC.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search for SRs published before February 2019 was conducted in the PubMed, Embase.com, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science without any language restrictions. We will use the assessment of multiple systematic reviews-2 instrument to assess the methodological quality of each SR. Bubble plots will be used to summarize the main characteristics and quality of SRs. Standard pairwise meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison will be conducted to compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers.

Results

The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Conclusion

The findings of this project will provide a general overview and evidence of the diagnostic value of biomarkers in detecting CRC.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019125880.

SUBMITTER: Wang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6587652 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The value of biomarkers in colorectal cancer: Protocol for an overview and a secondary analysis of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

Wang Jun J Liang Wenjia W Wang Xiangwen X Min Guangtao G Chen Wei W Wang Hongpeng H Yao Nan N Wang Jiancheng J

Medicine 20190601 24

<h4>Background</h4>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world, with 694,000 deaths each year. Despite improvements in treatment strategies in recent years, the overall survival rate of CRC is still very low and the survival rate is highly dependent on the stage at the time of diagnosis. Some biomarkers have shown great potential for early screening of CRC and some have been tested in systematic reviews (SRs). However, the quality of these SRs remains unclear and these S ...[more]

PMID: 31192959

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease with multiorgan inflammatory involvement and a mortality rate that is 2.6-fold higher than individuals of the same age and sex in the general population. Approximately 50% of patients with SLE develop renal impairment (lupus nephritis). Delayed diagnosis of lupus nephritis is associated with a higher risk of progression to end-stage renal disease, the need for replacement therapy, and mortality. The initial clinical manifestations of lupus nephritis are often discrete or absent and are usually detected through complementary tests. Although widely used in clinical practice, their accuracy is limited. A great scientific effort has been exerted towards searching for new, more sensitive, and specific biomarkers in recent years. Some systematic reviews have individually evaluated new serum and urinary biomarkers tested in patients with lupus nephritis. This overview aimed to summarize systematic reviews on the accuracy of novel serum and urinary biomarkers for diagnosing lupus nephritis in patients with SLE, discussing how our results can guide the clinical management of the disease and the direction of research in this area.MethodsThe research question is "What is the accuracy of the new serum and urinary biomarkers studied for the diagnosis of LN in patients with SLE?". We searched for systematic reviews of observational studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of new serum or urinary biomarkers of lupus nephritis. The following databases were included: PubMed, EMBASE, BIREME/LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane, including gray literature found via Google Scholar and PROQUEST. Two authors assessed the reviews for inclusion, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias (ROBIS tool).ResultsTen SRs on the diagnostic accuracy of new serum and urinary BMs in LN were selected. The SRs evaluated 7 distinct BMs: (a) antibodies (anti-Sm, anti-RNP, and anti-C1q), (b) cytokines (TWEAK and MCP-1), (c) a chemokine (IP-10), and (d) an acute phase glycoprotein (NGAL), in a total of 20 review arms (9 that analyzed serum BMs, and 12 that analyzed BMs in urine). The population evaluated in the primary studies was predominantly adults. Two SRs included strictly adults, 5 reviews also included studies in the paediatric population, and 4 did not report the age groups. The results of the evaluation with the ROBIS tool showed that most of the reviews had a low overall risk of bias.ConclusionsThere are 10 SRs of evidence relating to the diagnostic accuracy of serum and urinary biomarkers for lupus nephritis. Among the BMs evaluated, anti-C1q, urinary MCP-1, TWEAK, and NGAL stood out, highlighting the need for additional research, especially on LN diagnostic panels, and attempting to address methodological issues within diagnostic accuracy research. This would allow for a better understanding of their usefulness and possibly validate their clinical use in the future.RegistrationThis project is registered on the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42020196693).

Project description:BackgroundRobust diagnosis of dementia requires an understanding of the accuracy of the available diagnostic tests. Informant questionnaires are frequently used to assess for dementia in clinical practice. Recent systematic reviews have sought to establish the diagnostic test accuracy of various dementia informant screening tools. However, most reviews to date have focused on a single diagnostic tool and this does not address which tool is 'best'. A key aim of the overview of systematic reviews is to present a disparate evidence base in a single, easy to access platform.MethodsWe will conduct an overview of systematic reviews in which we 'review the systematic reviews' of diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating informant questionnaires for dementia. As an overview of systematic reviews of test accuracy is a relatively novel approach, we will use this review to explore methods for visual representation of complex data, for highlighting evidence gaps and for indirect comparative analyses. We will create a list of informant tools by consulting with dementia experts. We will search 6 databases (EMBASE (OVID); Health and Psychosocial Instruments (OVID); Medline (OVID); CINAHL (EBSCO); PSYCHinfo (EBSCO) and the PROSPERO registry of review protocols) to identify systematic reviews that describe the diagnostic test accuracy of informant questionnaires for dementia. We will assess review quality using the AMSTAR-2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) and assess reporting quality using PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies) checklists. We will collate the identified reviews to create an 'evidence map' that highlights where evidence does and does not exist in relation to informant questionnaires. We will pool sensitivity and specificity data via meta-analysis to generate a diagnostic test accuracy summary statistic for each informant questionnaire. If data allow, we will perform a statistical comparison of the diagnostic test accuracy of each informant questionnaire using a network approach.DiscussionOur overview of systematic reviews will provide a concise summary of the diagnostic test accuracy of informant tools and highlight areas where evidence is currently lacking in this regard. It will also apply network meta-analysis techniques to a new area.

Project description:ImportanceSystematic reviews of medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are affected by between-study heterogeneity due to a range of factors. Failure to appropriately assess the extent and causes of heterogeneity compromises the interpretability of systematic review findings.ObjectiveTo assess how heterogeneity has been examined in medical imaging DTA studies.Evidence reviewThe PubMed database was searched for systematic reviews of medical imaging DTA studies that performed a meta-analysis. The search was limited to the 40 journals with highest impact factor in the radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging category in the InCites Journal Citation Reports of 2021 to reach a sample size of 200 to 300 included studies. Descriptive analysis was performed to characterize the imaging modality, target condition, type of meta-analysis model used, strategies for evaluating heterogeneity, and sources of heterogeneity identified. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether any factors were associated with at least 1 source of heterogeneity being identified in the included meta-analyses. Methodological quality evaluation was not performed. Data analysis occurred from October to December 2022.FindingsA total of 242 meta-analyses involving a median (range) of 987 (119-441 510) patients across a diverse range of disease categories and imaging modalities were included. The extent of heterogeneity was adequately described (ie, whether it was absent, low, moderate, or high) in 220 studies (91%) and was most commonly assessed using the I2 statistic (185 studies [76%]) and forest plots (181 studies [75%]). Heterogeneity was rated as moderate to high in 191 studies (79%). Of all included meta-analyses, 122 (50%) performed subgroup analysis and 87 (36%) performed meta-regression. Of the 242 studies assessed, 189 (78%) included 10 or more primary studies. Of these 189 studies, 60 (32%) did not perform meta-regression or subgroup analysis. Reasons for being unable to investigate sources of heterogeneity included inadequate reporting of primary study characteristics and a low number of included primary studies. Use of meta-regression was associated with identification of at least 1 source of variability (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.23; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of assessment of heterogeneity in medical imaging DTA meta-analyses, most meta-analyses were impacted by a moderate to high level of heterogeneity, presenting interpretive challenges. These findings suggest that, despite the development and availability of more rigorous statistical models, heterogeneity appeared to be incomplete, inconsistently evaluated, or methodologically questionable in many cases, which lessened the interpretability of the analyses performed; comprehensive heterogeneity assessment should be addressed at the author level by improving personal familiarity with appropriate statistical methodology for assessing heterogeneity and involving biostatisticians and epidemiologists in study design, as well as at the editorial level, by mandating adherence to methodologic standards in primary DTA studies and DTA meta-analyses.

Dataset Information

The value of biomarkers in colorectal cancer: Protocol for an overview and a secondary analysis of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Prospero registration number

Publications

The value of biomarkers in colorectal cancer: Protocol for an overview and a secondary analysis of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets