Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16423296›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2006

Chromosomal imbalances in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis of comparative genomic hybridization results.

Xin Li, Ena Wang, Ying-dong Zhao, Jia-Qiang Ren, Ping Jin, Kai-Tai Yao, Francesco M Marincola

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The progress on genetic analysis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Comparative and functional genomics · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xin LiImmunogenetics Section, Department of Transfusion Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. lixin2@cc.nih.gov
Ena Wang
Ying-dong Zhao
Jia-Qiang Ren
Ping Jin
Kai-Tai Yao
Francesco M Marincola
National Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USNational Cancer Institute · USSouthern Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a highly prevalent disease in Southeast Asia and its prevalence is clearly affected by genetic background. Various theories have been suggested for its high incidence in this geographical region but to these days no conclusive explanation has been identified. Chromosomal imbalances identifiable through comparative genomic hybridization may shed some light on common genetic alterations that may be of relevance to the onset and progression of NPC. Review of the literature, however, reveals contradictory results among reported findings possibly related to factors associated with patient selection, stage of disease, differences in methodological details etc. To increase the power of the analysis and attempt to identify commonalities among the reported findings, we performed a meta-analysis of results described in NPC tissues based on chromosomal comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). This meta-analysis revealed consistent patters in chromosomal abnormalities that appeared to cluster in specific "hot spots" along the genome following a stage-dependent progression.

Identifiers

PMID16423296
PMCPMC1403800
OpenAlexW1488427595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.