SynthesisMolecular biology reports2012
MTHFR polymorphisms and ovarian cancer risk: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Molecular biology reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting purine metabolism in ovarian cancer.Journal of ovarian research · 2022Review
- Effects of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase single-nucleotide polymorphisms on breast, cervical, ovarian, and endometrial cancer susceptibilities.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2021Article
- Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase A1298C Polymorphism and Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis of 33 Studies.Annals of medical and health sciences research · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The C677T and A1298C polymorphisms of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) have been reported to alter the risk of ovarian cancer. However, the results are still inconclusive. For better understanding of the effect of these two polymorphisms on ovarian cancer risk, a meta-analysis was performed. An extensive search was performed to identify all case-control studies investigating such association. The strength of association between these two polymorphisms and ovarian cancer risk was assessed by odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI). 3,496 cases and 3,631 controls for C677T polymorphism and 3,280 cases and 3,346 controls for A1298C polymorphism were included in this meta-analysis. The results suggested that there were no significant associations between C677T and A1298C polymorphisms and ovarian cancer risk in overall comparisons in all genetic models (For C677T: TT vs. CC: OR = 0.94, 95 % CI = 0.71-1.24, P = 0.65; CT vs. CC: OR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 0.93-1.14, P = 0.57; TT/CT vs. CC: OR = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.88-1.16, P = 0.87; TT vs. CC/CT: OR = 0.93, 95 % CI = 0.72-1.20, P = 0.58. For A1298C: CC vs. AA: OR = 1.05, 95 % CI = 0.88-1.25, P = 0.65; CA vs. AA: OR = 0.98, 95 % CI = 0.88-1.08, P = 0.66; CC/CA vs. AA: OR = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.90-1.09, P = 0.85; CC vs. AA/CA: OR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 0.90-1.26, P = 0.46). Subgroup analysis based on ethnicities and influence analysis did not perturb the results. In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis indicate that the MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms are not associated with ovarian cancer risk, especially in Caucasians.
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.