ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2012
A comparison of approaches for association studies of polymorphisms and colorectal cancer risk.
Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Unveiling the link: Evaluating MTHFR gene polymorphisms and colorectal cancer risk through meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Association between the MTHFR C677T polymorphism and risk of cancer: evidence from 446 case-control studies.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- The methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T polymorphism and tumor risk: evidence from 134 case-control studies.Molecular biology reports · 2014Pooled it
- Deletion and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in Common Glutathione-S Transferases Contribute to Colorectal Cancer Development.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimMeta-analyses have been used to evaluate associations between polymorphisms and colorectal cancer risk, but the quality of individual studies used to inform them may vary substantially. Our aim was to apply well-established quality-control criteria to individual association studies and then compare the results of meta-analyses that included or excluded studies that did not meet these criteria.
methodWe used meta-analyses of studies reporting a relationship between polymorphisms and colorectal cancer published between 1996 and 2008. Polymorphism-cancer associations were derived in separate meta-analyses including only those meeting the quality-control criteria.
resultsRelative ORs varied substantially between the open and restricted group meta-analyses for all variants except MTHFR 677 CT. However, the associations were modest and the direction of relative risk did not change after applying criteria. Publication bias was detected for all associations, except the restricted set of studies for GSTP1 GG.
conclusionWe observed variation in calculated relative risk and changes in tests for publication bias that were dependent on the inclusion criteria used for association studies of polymorphisms and colorectal cancer. Standardizing study inclusion criteria may reduce the variation in findings for meta-analyses of gene-association studies of common diseases such as colorectal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.