ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Prognostic value of rsf-1/hbxap in human solid tumors: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- RSF-1 siRNA Enhances Tumor Radiosensitivity in Cervical Cancer via Enhanced DNA Damage, Cell Cycle Redistribution, and Promotion of Apoptosis.OncoTargets and therapy · 2020Article
- RSF1 regulates the proliferation and paclitaxel resistance via modulating NF-κB signaling pathway in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Journal of Cancer · 2017Article
- Pyruvate kinase M2 overexpression and poor prognosis in solid tumors of digestive system: evidence from 16 cohort studies.OncoTargets and therapy · 2016Article
- Efficacy of different monotherapies in second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRecent studies have investigated remodeling and spacing factor 1 (Rsf-1) as a molecular marker in various solid tumors. However, whether or not Rsf-1 exerts a negative or positive effect on the survival of patients with solid cancers remains controversial. Therefore, this study aims to determine whether or not Rsf-1 may be a predicative marker of poor prognosis and aggressive tumor progression.
methodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of 11 cohort studies (n = 1620 patients) to evaluate the relationship between Rsf-1 and clinical outcome. We included studies with data on overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrent-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsHigh Rsf-1 expression was significantly associated with poor survival in solid tumors. Overall, the combined HR for OS was 1.49 (95% CI = 1.21-1.84, P < 0.001), DSS 3.07 (95% CI = 1.67-5.62, P < 0.001), RFS 2.51 (95% CI = 1.12-5.63, P = 0.025), and MFS 2.14 (95% CI = 1.49-3.06, P < 0.001). In addition, Rsf-1 overexpression was significantly associated with tumor stage (OR = 4.13, 95% CI = 2.84-6.00, P < 0.001), primary tumor (OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.58-2.75, P < 0.001), nodal status (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.40-2.72, P < 0.001), and histological grade (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 2.10-4.54, P < 0.001).
conclusionsRsf-1 may be a predicative marker of poor prognosis and aggressive tumor progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25932123PMC4402770What 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.