ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Association of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1-2518A/G polymorphism and risk of coronary artery disease among the Chinese population: a meta-analysis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Variation in the Chemokine Network and Atherosclerosis Risk.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
- Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 polymorphism interaction with spirulina immunomodulatory effects in healthy Korean elderly: A 16 week, double-blind randomized clinical trial.Nutrition research and practice · 2017Article
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
backgroundNumerous studies have evaluated the association between the MCP-1-2518A/G polymorphism and coronary artery disease (CAD) risk; however, the actual association is controversial. To derive a more precise estimation of the relationship in Chinese population, we performed this meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI databases to identify studies that examined the association between the MCP-1-2518A/Gpolymorphism and the risk of CAD. We estimated the pooled odds ratio with its 95% confidence interval to assess this association.
resultsSeven studies containing 4024 Chinese subjects (2260 patients with CAD and 1764 controls) were included in this meta-analysis. MCP-1-2518A/G polymorphism was not found to be significantly associated with CAD risk in all comparisons (for G vs A: OR=1.10, 95% CI=0.92-1.32; for AG+GG vs AA: OR=1.10, 95% CI=0.79-1.53; for GG vs AA+AG: OR=1.05, 95% CI=0.91-1.21; for GG vs AA: OR=1.12, 95% CI=0.82-1.54; for AG vs AA: OR=1.05, 95% CI=0.76-1.47). Similarly, no associations were found in subgroup analysis based on source of control and endpoint.
conclusionsthe MCP-1-2518A/G polymorphism was not associated with the risk of CAD in Chinese population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26629002PMC4658891W2418278812What 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.