SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Association between esophageal cancer risk and EPHX1 polymorphisms: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cumulative evidence for association between genetic polymorphisms and esophageal cancer susceptibility: A review with evidence from meta-analysis and genome-wide association studies.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- EPHX1 enhances drug resistance to regorafenib by activating the JAK/STAT signaling pathway in hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines.Hereditas · 2025Article
- Elaboration and validation of a prognostic signature associated with disulfidoptosis in lung adenocarcinoma, consolidated with integration of single-cell RNA sequencing and bulk RNA sequencing techniques.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo summarize the relationship between p.Tyr113His and p.His139Arg polymorphisms in microsomal epoxide hydrolase (EPHX1) and risk for esophageal cancer (EC).
methodsThe MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for studies of the association between EPHX1 polymorphisms and EC risk that were published from the database inception date to April 2013. A total of seven case-control studies, including seven on p.Tyr113His (cases, n = 1118; controls, n = 1823) and six on p.His139Arg (cases, n = 861; controls, n = 1571), were included in the meta-analysis. After data extraction by two investigators working independently, the meta-analyses were carried out with STATA 11.0 software. Pooled odds ratios and 95%CI were calculated using a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model, as appropriate.
resultsThe pooled EPHX1 p.Tyr113His polymorphism data showed no significant association with EC in any of the genetic models (OR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.70-1.48 for Tyr/His vs Tyr/Tyr; OR = 1.10, 95%CI: 0.77-1.57 for His/His vs Tyr/Tyr; OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.75-1.49 for a dominant model; OR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.89-1.34 for a recessive model). Similar results were obtained from the p.His139Arg polymorphism analysis (Arg/His vs His/His: OR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.84-1.23; Arg/Arg vs His/His: OR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.60-1.54; OR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.78-1.37 for the dominant model; OR = 0.97, 95%CI: 0.61-1.56 for the recessive model). Subgroup analyses for ethnicity, subtype of EC, and source of controls (population-based or hospital-based) showed trends that were consistent with the pooled analysis (reported above), with no significant associations found.
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that the p.Tyr113His and p.His139Arg polymorphisms in EPHX1 may not be associated with EC development.
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.