Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26416448›Full record

SynthesisOncotarget2015

MicroRNAs as prognostic molecular signatures in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liangyou Gu, Hongzhao Li, Luyao Chen, Xin Ma, Yu Gao, Xintao Li, Yu Zhang, Yang Fan, Xu Zhang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Liangyou GuDepartment of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, P.R. China.
Hongzhao LiDepartment of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, P.R. China.
Luyao ChenDepartment of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, P.R. China.
Xin MaDepartment of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, P.R. China.
Yu GaoDepartment of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, P.R. China.
Xintao LiDepartment of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, P.R. China.
Yu ZhangDepartment of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, P.R. China.
Yang FanDepartment of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, P.R. China.
Xu ZhangDepartment of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is a systematic review of studies investigating the prognostic value of different microRNAs (miRs) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Twenty-seven relevant studies were identified, with a total of 2578 subjects. We found that elevated expression of miR-21, miR-1260b, miR-210, miR-100, miR-125b, miR-221, miR-630, and miR-497 was associated with a poor prognosis in RCC patients. Conversely, decreased expression of miR-106b, miR-99a, miR-1826, miR-215, miR-217, miR-187, miR-129-3p, miR-23b, miR-27b, and miR-126 was associated with a worse prognosis. We performed meta-analyses on studies to address the prognostic value of miR-21, miR-126, miR-210, and miR-221. This revealed that elevated miR-21 expression was associated with shorter overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-4.08), cancer specific survival (CSS; HR, 4.16; 95% CI, 2.49-6.95), and disease free survival (DFS; HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.16-3.98). The decreased expression of miR-126 was associated with shorter CSS (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.85), OS (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30-0.69), and DFS (HR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.18-0.50). Our comprehensive systematic review reveals that miRs, especially miR-21 and miR-126, could be promising prognostic markers and useful therapeutic targets in RCC.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Renal CellDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansKidney NeoplasmsMicroRNAsOdds RatioPhenotypeRisk FactorsSurvival AnalysisTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAsmeta-analysismicroRNAprognosis biomarkerrenal cell carcinomasurvival

Identifiers

PMID26416448
PMCPMC4741711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.