SynthesisScientific reports2015
Meta-analysis of the association of MTHFR polymorphisms with multiple myeloma risk.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational Prediction of Probable Single Nucleotide Polymorphism-Cancer Relationships.Cancer informatics · 2020Article
- Frequency of pathogenic germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes in breast cancer patients.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2018Article
- A Mendelian Randomization Study of Plasma Homocysteine and Multiple Myeloma.Scientific reports · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The association of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphisms with multiple myeloma (MM) risk has been explored, but the results remain controversial. Thus, a meta-analysis was performed to provide a comprehensively estimate. The case-control studies about MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms with MM risk were collected by searching PubMed, Elsevier, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Databases. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to assess the strength of association. Overall, no significant association was found between MTHFR A1298C polymorphism and MM risk under all four genetic models (AC vs. AA, OR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.82-1.20; CC vs. AA, OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.77-1.68; recessive model, OR = 1.10, 95%CI = 0.76-1.59; dominant model, OR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.84-1.22). The risk was also not significantly altered for C677T polymorphism and MM in overall comparisons (CT vs. CC, OR = 1.04, 95%CI = 0.93-1.17; TT vs. CC, OR = 1.16, 95%CI = 0.98-1.37; recessive model, OR = 1.13, 95%CI = 0.98-1.32; dominant model, OR = 1.07, 95%CI = 0.96-1.20). In subgroup analyses by ethnicity, no significant association was observed in both Caucasians and Asians. This meta-analysis suggested that MTHFR polymorphisms were not associated with MM risk.
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.