Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25337227›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2014

Prognostic role of microvessel density in patients with renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

Si-Hang Cheng, Jia-Ming Liu, Qin-Yu Liu, De-Yi Luo, Bang-Hua Liao, Hong Li, Kun-Jie Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The vascular landscape of human cancer.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Si-Hang ChengDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China.
Jia-Ming LiuDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China.
Qin-Yu LiuDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China.
De-Yi LuoDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China.
Bang-Hua LiaoDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China.
Hong LiDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China.
Kun-Jie WangDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microvessel density (MVD), an indicator of angiogenesis, has been proposed to predict prognosis of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but its ability to predict survival of patients with RCC remains controversial. The present study sought to address this question rigorously by systematically reviewing the literature on MVD and RCC prognosis. We identified relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, and two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted relevant data to compare survival based on MVD stratification in patients with RCC. We identified 15 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria; eight studies assessed MVD in surgical samples by immunohistochemistry to label factor VIII; four studies, by immunohistochemistry to label CD34; two studies, CD31; and one study, CD105. Survival meta-analysis was performed using data pooled from 10 studies: five based on factor VIII, two based on CD34, two based on CD31 and one based on CD105. The overall survival hazard ratio describing the relationship between MVD and survival in all 10 pooled studies was 0.964 (95% CI: 0.873-1.065), while the individual hazard ratios for pooled studies based on factor VIII were 1.673 (95% CI: 0.860-3.252); CD34, 0.903 (95% CI: 0.853-0.956); and CD31, 0.926 (95% CI: 0.868-0.989). The corresponding result for the sole trial based on CD105 was 0.1759 (95% CI: 0.036-0.856). These findings suggest that MVD is not reliably associated with survival time of patients with RCC, which may reflect the need to take into account whether the microvasculature is differentiated or not. MVD as currently calculated may not be an ideal prognostic factor for patients with RCC.

Indexed as

Neovascularization, PathologicAntigens, CDAntigens, CD34Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Renal CellChi-Square DistributionEndoglinFactor VIIIHumansImmunohistochemistryKidney NeoplasmsMicrovesselsOdds RatioPlatelet Endothelial Cell Adhesion Molecule-1Predictive Value of TestsPrognosisAntigens, CDAntigens, CD34Biomarkers, TumorEndoglinENG protein, humanF8 protein, humanFactor VIIIPlatelet Endothelial Cell Adhesion Molecule-1Receptors, Cell Surfacemeta-analysisMicrovessel densityprognosisrenal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID25337227
PMCPMC4203198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.