Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16804517›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2006

Association of MUTYH and colorectal cancer.

A Tenesa, H Campbell, R Barnetson, M Porteous, M Dunlop, S M Farrington

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Diagnostic Approach to Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Syndromes.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2015
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A TenesaColon Cancer Genetics Group, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, UK. albert.tenesa@ed.ac.uk
H Campbell
R Barnetson
M Porteous
M Dunlop
S M Farrington
University of Edinburgh · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZB/4/449Medical Research Council MC_U127527198
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mutations in the MUTYH gene have been reported to be associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. In this study, we confirmed this association using original data on 928 colorectal cancer cases and 845 healthy controls from Scotland. We then conducted a meta-analysis from published data on the association between mutations at MUTYH and colorectal cancer risk. We show for the first time a small but significant mono-allelic effect with a genotype relative risk (GRR) of 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.61), and confirm and give a more precise estimate of the strong bi-allelic effect with an estimated GRR of 117 (95% CI: 74-184). This study underscores the need for large sample sizes in order to identify small gene effects when the disease allele frequency is low.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDatabases as TopicDNA GlycosylasesDNA Mutational AnalysisHumansMutationRisk FactorsScotlandDNA GlycosylasesmutY adenine glycosylase

Identifiers

PMID16804517
PMCPMC2360610
OpenAlexW2124719572

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.