A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer.
To overview the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and to review sources of methodologic variability. Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies investigating t...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285745&type=printable |
| _version_ | 1826934199465017344 |
|---|---|
| author | Hanting Wu Yanling Wu Peijie He Juan Liang Xiujuan Xu Conghua Ji |
| author_facet | Hanting Wu Yanling Wu Peijie He Juan Liang Xiujuan Xu Conghua Ji |
| author_sort | Hanting Wu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | To overview the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and to review sources of methodologic variability. Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies investigating the diagnostic value of SelectMDx compared with the gold standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Included studies were assessed according to the Standards for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The review identified 14 relevant publications with 2579 patients. All reports constituted phase 1 biomarker studies. Pooled analysis of findings found an area under the receiver operating characteristic analysis curve of 70% [95% CI, 66%-74%], a sensitivity of 81% [95% CI, 69%-89%], and a specificity of 52% [95% CI, 41%-63%]. The positive likelihood ratio was 1.68, and the negative predictive value is 0.37. Factors that may influence variability in test results included the breath collection method, the patient's physiologic condition, the test environment, and the method of analysis. Considerable heterogeneity was observed among the studies owing to the difference in the sample size. SelectMDx appears to have moderate to good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating patients with clinically significant prostate cancer from people at high risk of developing prostate cancer. Higher-quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for clinically significant cancer are still needed. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T00:15:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c731d20066d34533a14089b48fd73918 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-02-17T17:45:02Z |
| publishDate | 2024-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-c731d20066d34533a14089b48fd739182024-12-14T05:31:28ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032024-01-01192e028574510.1371/journal.pone.0285745A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer.Hanting WuYanling WuPeijie HeJuan LiangXiujuan XuConghua JiTo overview the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and to review sources of methodologic variability. Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies investigating the diagnostic value of SelectMDx compared with the gold standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Included studies were assessed according to the Standards for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The review identified 14 relevant publications with 2579 patients. All reports constituted phase 1 biomarker studies. Pooled analysis of findings found an area under the receiver operating characteristic analysis curve of 70% [95% CI, 66%-74%], a sensitivity of 81% [95% CI, 69%-89%], and a specificity of 52% [95% CI, 41%-63%]. The positive likelihood ratio was 1.68, and the negative predictive value is 0.37. Factors that may influence variability in test results included the breath collection method, the patient's physiologic condition, the test environment, and the method of analysis. Considerable heterogeneity was observed among the studies owing to the difference in the sample size. SelectMDx appears to have moderate to good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating patients with clinically significant prostate cancer from people at high risk of developing prostate cancer. Higher-quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx for clinically significant cancer are still needed.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285745&type=printable |
| spellingShingle | Hanting Wu Yanling Wu Peijie He Juan Liang Xiujuan Xu Conghua Ji A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer. PLoS ONE |
| title | A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer. |
| title_full | A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer. |
| title_fullStr | A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer. |
| title_full_unstemmed | A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer. |
| title_short | A meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx in prostate cancer. |
| title_sort | meta analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of selectmdx in prostate cancer |
| url | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285745&type=printable |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hantingwu ametaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT yanlingwu ametaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT peijiehe ametaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT juanliang ametaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT xiujuanxu ametaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT conghuaji ametaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT hantingwu metaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT yanlingwu metaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT peijiehe metaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT juanliang metaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT xiujuanxu metaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer AT conghuaji metaanalysisforthediagnosticaccuracyofselectmdxinprostatecancer |