ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2014
Refute the conclusion made by Jie et al. in "prognostic role of microRNA-100 in various carcinomas: evidence from six studies".
Article in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic significance of microRNA-100 in solid tumors: an updated meta-analysis.OncoTargets and therapy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, we had the honor of reading a meta-analysis article published in Tumor Biology which was completed by Jie et al. Because of our interest in the correlations between microRNAs (miRs) and human cancer prognosis, we carefully read the entire article. Jie et al. put forward a standpoint that deregulation of miR-100 in cancerous tissues could significantly predict poor survival in various carcinomas. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was 2.19 (1.49-3.24, p = 0.0007). The reliability of the meta-analysis is reciprocally higher than traditional and narrative reviews. Furthermore, the reliability is exclusively dependent on reference retrieval, incorporating eligible articles as comprehensive as possible, and proper and accurate data extraction. We found several critical errors in their meta-analysis, and its conclusion was unbelievable and might misguide readers. According to their statistical strategies, we also conducted a meta-analysis to reevaluate the relationship between deregulation of miR-100 and human cancer prognosis for rectification. The present studies are not powerful enough to demonstrate the prognostic role of miR-100 in human cancers, and thus, much more works are needed in this field.
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.