Dataset Information

Urinary Exosomes Diagnosis of Urological Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Exosomes could be released directly into the urine by the urological tumoral cells, so testing urinary exosomes has great potential for non-invasive diagnosis and monitor of urological tumors. The objective of this study is to systematically review and meta-analysis of urinary exosome for urological tumors diagnosis.

Materials and methods

A systematic review of the recent English-language literature was conducted according to the PRISMA statement recommendations (CRD42021250613) using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to April 30, 2021. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed according to the QUADAS 2 tool. The true diagnostic value of urinary exosomes by calculating the number of true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative, diagnoses by extracting specificity and sensitivity data from the selected literature.

Results

Sixteen eligible studies enrolling 3224 patients were identified. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of urinary exosomes as a diagnostic tool in urological tumors were 83% and 88%, respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94). Further subgroup analyses showed that our results were stable irrespective of the urinary exosome content type and tumor type.

Conclusion

Urinary exosomes may serve as novel non-invasive biomarkers for urological cancer detection. Future clinical trial designs must validate and explore their utility in treatment decision-making.

Systematic review registration

[ https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021250613].

SUBMITTER: Xu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8462303 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeAccurate diagnosis of urinary tract infection in children is essential because children left untreated can experience permanent renal injury. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of clinical features of pediatric urinary tract infection.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies in ambulatory care. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases from inception to January 27, 2020 for studies reporting 2 × 2 diagnostic accuracy data for clinical features compared with urine culture in children aged <18 years. For each clinical feature, we calculated likelihood ratios and posttest probabilities of urinary tract infection. To estimate summary parameters, we conducted a bivariate random effects meta-analysis and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic analysis.ResultsA total of 35 studies (N = 78,427 patients) of moderate to high quality were included, providing information on 58 clinical features and 6 prediction rules. Only circumcision (negative likelihood ratio [LR-] 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.72; n = 8), stridor (LR- 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.81; n = 1), and diaper rash (LR- 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; n = 1) were useful for ruling out urinary tract infection. Body temperature or fever duration showed limited diagnostic value (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.73; n = 16). The Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children score, Gorelick Scale score, and UTIcalc (https://uticalc.pitt.edu) might be useful to identify children eligible for urine sampling.ConclusionsFew clinical signs and symptoms are useful for diagnosing or ruling out urinary tract infection in children. Clinical prediction rules might be more accurate; however, they should be validated externally. Physicians should not restrict urine sampling to children with unexplained fever or other features suggestive of urinary tract infection.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Minimally invasive surgery in urology has grown considerably in application since its initial description in the early 1990s. Herein, we present the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing open versus robotic urological oncological surgery for various clinically relevant outcomes, as well as to assess their comparative penetrance over the past 20 years (2000-2020). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will document the penetrance of robotic versus open surgery in the urological oncological field using a national database.Second, we will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published full-text English and non-English language articles from Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science search engines on surgical treatment of localised prostate, bladder, kidney and testis cancer published between 1st January 2000 to 10th January 2020. We will focus on the highest-volume urological oncological surgeries, namely, radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy, partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Study inclusion criteria will comprise clinical trials and prospective and retrospective studies (cohort or case-control series) comparing robotic versus open surgery. Exclusion criteria will comprise meta-analyses, multiple papers with overalapping study-periods, studies analysing national databases and case series describing only one approach (robotic or open). Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed by the appropriate Cochrane risk of bias tool. Principal outcomes assessed will include perioperative, functional, oncological survival and financial outcomes of open versus robotic uro-oncological surgery. Sensitivity analyses will be performed to correlate outcomes of interest with key baseline characteristics and surrogates of surgical expertise. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis will provide rigorous, consolidated information on contemporary outcomes and trends of open versus robotic urological oncological surgery based on all the available literature. These aggregate data will help physicians better advise patients seeking surgical care for urological cancers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017064958.

Project description:Several studies have evaluated the utility of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and capsule endoscopy (CE) for patients with small-bowel disease showing inconsistent results. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of overtube-assisted enteroscopy (OAE) as well as the diagnostic concordance between OAE and CE for small-bowel polyps and tumors.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in which the results of OAE were compared with the results of CE for the evaluation of small-bowel polyps and tumors. When data for surgically resected lesions were available, the histopathological results of OAE and surgical specimens were compared. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for the diagnosis of small-bowel polyps and tumors were analyzed. Secondarily, the rates of diagnostic concordance and discordance between OAE and CE were calculated.There were 15 full-length studies with a total of 821 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were as follows: 0.89 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.84 - 0.93), with heterogeneity χ(2) = 41.23 (P = 0.0002) and inconsistency (I (2)) = 66.0 %; 0.97 (95 %CI 0.95 - 0.98), with heterogeneity χ(2) = 45.27 (P = 0.07) and inconsistency (I (2)) = 69.1 %; 16.61 (95 %CI 3.74 - 73.82), with heterogeneity Cochrane's Q = 225.19 (P < 0.01) and inconsistency (I (2)) = 93.8 %; and 0.14 (95 %CI 0.05 - 0.35), with heterogeneity Cochrane's Q = 81.01 (P < .01) and inconsistency (I (2)) = 82.7 %, respectively. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) curve was constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97.OAE is an accurate test for the detection of small-bowel polyps and tumors. OAE and CE have a high diagnostic concordance rate for small-bowel polyps and tumors. This study was registered in the PROSPERO international database (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) with the study number CRD42015016000.