Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
This study aimed to critically appraise the evidence of the diagnostic effectiveness of miRNAs for the detection of cervical cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed, searching PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. An umbrella meta-analysis of meta-analyses of individual biomarkers was performed. A Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment of evidence was also performed. A total of 52 miRNAs were included. Umbrella meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity in terms of sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC), positive predictive value and/or negative predictive value. Umbrella effects were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.73-0.78), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.81), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75-0.80), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74-0.79), respectively. Moderate quality evidence suggested miR199a-5p, miR21-5p and miR-141a had excellent diagnostic performance.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/epi-2023-0183 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!