Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25428392›Full record

SynthesisMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2015

Bcl-2 expression and patient survival in gastric cancer: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis.

Haidong Cheng, Xiumei Wang, Tao Li, Lin Chen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Network Pharmacology-Based Approach to Investigate the Mechanisms ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018
    Article
  13. Bcl-2 antigen expression in luminal A and triple-negative breast cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2017
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Haidong ChengMedical Center, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China.
Xiumei Wang
Tao Li
Lin Chen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prognostic role of Bcl-2 in gastric cancer remains controversial. We systematically reviewed the evidence for the effect of Bcl-2 expression in gastric cancer to elucidate this issue. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to identify eligible studies to evaluate the association between Bcl-2 expression and overall survival (OS) and clinicopathological features of gastric cancer. Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were pooled to estimate the effect. Bcl-2 expression was not significantly correlated with OS of gastric cancer patients (combined HR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.62-1.25). Subgroup analysis indicated that Bcl-2 expression had a favorable impact on OS in Asian countries (HR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.47-0.77) and cutoff value <15 % (HR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.48-0.97). Furthermore, Bcl-2 expression was significantly associated with TNM stage (OR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.41-0.80), the depth of invasion (OR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.37-0.76), and lymph node metastasis (OR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.42-0.71). Bcl-2 expression predicts less invasion and malignancy in clinicopathological features. Moreover, Bcl-2 could be a favorable prognostic marker for patients of Asian countries.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorHumansPrognosisProto-Oncogene Proteins c-bcl-2Stomach NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorProto-Oncogene Proteins c-bcl-2

Identifiers

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.