ABSTRACT
The sensitivity (Sen) of classic biomarkers for the diagnosis of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs) is currently low. Previous studies have shown the diagnostic potential of microRNAs (miRNAs) for TGCTs; however, the results of these studies are inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate their diagnostic value. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched until September 30, 2020 and 18 trials from 11 studies involving 2,068 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Using a bivariate mixed-effects meta-analysis model, the pooled Sen, specificity (Spe), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence interval values of total miRNAs were 0.83 (0.73-0.90), 0.95 (0.89-0.98), 15.79 (7.41-33.66), 0.18 (0.11-0.29), 87.13 (41.99-180.82), and 0.95 (0.93-0.97), respectively; however, the observed values of single miR-371a-3p were 0.84 (0.76-0.90), 0.95 (0.91-0.98), 18.41 (9.69-34.97), 0.17 (0.11-0.26), 111.56 (47.72-260.80), and 0.97 (0.95-0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that miRNAs that included miR-371a-3p showed higher predictive performance than those that did not (P < 0.05). This research identified that miR-371a-3p has a high diagnostic value for TGCTs, except teratoma.
Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics , MicroRNAs/genetics , Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal/diagnosis , Testicular Neoplasms/diagnosis , Area Under Curve , Humans , Male , Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal/genetics , Odds Ratio , Testicular Neoplasms/geneticsABSTRACT
The performance of Xpert MTB/RIF using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) remains unclear. Therefore, a systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted. Studies published before 31 December 2019 were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases using the keywords "pulmonary tuberculosis," "Xpert MTB/RIF," and "BAL." Two independent evaluators extracted the data and assessed the bias risk of the included studies. A random-effects model was used to calculate the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC), as well as the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Nineteen trials involving 3,019 participants met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the culture method, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and the AUC with 95% CIs of Xpert MTB/RIF were 0.87 (0.84 to 0.90), 0.92 (0.91 to 0.93), 10.21 (5.78 to 18.02), 0.16 (0.12 to 0.22), 78.95 (38.59 to 161.53), and 0.9467 (0.9462 to 0.9472), respectively. Relative to the composite reference standard, the observed values were 0.69 (0.65 to 0.72), 0.98 (0.98 to 0.99), 37.50 (18.59 to 75.62), 0.30 (0.21 to 0.43), 171.98 (80.82 to 365.96), and 0.9691 (0.9683 to 0.9699), respectively. All subgroups, except children, showed high sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, the use of Xpert MTB/RIF in the context of BAL samples has a high diagnostic performance for PTB (except for children) and may serve as an alternative rapid diagnostic tool.