ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2015
XPA A23G polymorphism and risk of digestive system cancers: a meta-analysis.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- MetaGenyo: a web tool for meta-analysis of genetic association studies.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Pooled it
- Nucleotide excision repair pathway gene polymorphisms are associated with risk and prognosis of colorectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Association of humanCancer cell international · 2020Article
- DNA repair protein XPA is differentially expressed in colorectal cancer and predicts better prognosis.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- Potential risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma due to nucleotide excision repair XPA and XPC gene variants and their interaction among themselves and with environmental factors.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have reported an association between the A23G polymorphism (rs 1800975) in the xeroderma pigmentosum group A (XPA) gene and risk of digestive system cancers. However, the results are inconsistent. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the association between XPA A23G polymorphism and the risk of digestive system cancers.
methodsRelevant studies were identified using the PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, and VIP databases up to August 30, 2014. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the fixed or random effects model.
resultsA total of 18 case-control studies from 16 publications with 4,170 patients and 6,929 controls were included. Overall, no significant association was found between XPA A23G polymorphism and the risk of digestive system cancers (dominant model: GA + AA versus GG, OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74-1.08; recessive model: AA versus GA + GG, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74-1.20; GA versus GG, OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03; and AA versus GG, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64-1.19). When the analysis was stratified by ethnicity, similar results were observed among Asians and Caucasians in all genetic models. In stratified analysis based on tumor type, we also failed to detect any association between XPA A23G polymorphism and the risk of esophageal, gastric, or colorectal cancers.
conclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that the XPA A23G polymorphism is not associated with a risk of digestive system cancers.
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.