SynthesisPloS one2015
Associations between the Genetic Polymorphisms of Osteopontin Promoter and Susceptibility to Cancer in Chinese Population: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Common Variants in Osteopontin andCells · 2023Article
- Genetic Modifiers of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in Chinese Patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Association between promoter polymorphisms of OPN gene and cancer risk: a meta-analysis.OncoTargets and therapy · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimSeveral studies have been conducted to examine the associations between osteopontin (OPN) promoter gene SPP1 polymorphisms with human cancers in Chinese population, but the results remain inconsistent. The aim of this meta-analysis is to clarify the associations between SPP1 polymorphisms and cancer susceptibility.
methodsAll eligible case-control studies published up to March 2015 were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library without language restrictions. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using fixed- or random-effect model.
resultsA total of 11 case-control studies were included; of those, there were eleven studies (3130 cases and 3828 controls) for -443T>C polymorphism, ten studies (3019 cases and 3615 controls) for -156G>GG polymorphism, eight studies (2258 cases and 2846 controls) for -66T>G polymorphism. Overall, no evidence indicated that the -443 T>C polymorphism was associated with cancer risk (OR = 0.93, 95%CI 0.62-1.38 for dominant model, OR = 1.06, 95%CI 0.73-1.55 for recessive model, OR = 0.88, 95%CI 0.62-1.26 for CT vs TT model, OR = 1.03, 95%CI 0.61-1.73 for CC vs TT model). While, a significantly increase risk was found for -156 G>GG polymorphism (OR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.10-1.35 for dominant model, OR = 1.25, 95%CI 1.10-1.41 for recessive model, OR = 1.18, 95%CI 1.06-1.32 for GGG vs GG model, OR = 1.35, 95%CI 1.09-1.68 for GGGG vs GG model). For -66T>G polymorphism, we found a decrease risk of cancer (OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.98 for dominant model), but this result changed (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.77-1.12 for dominant model) when we excluded a study.
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that in Chinese population the -156G>GG polymorphism of SPP1 might be a risk factor for human cancers, while -443T>C mutation is not associated with cancer risk. For -66T>G polymorphism, it may be a protective factor for human 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.