ArticleBiomedical reports2016
Fas-670A>G polymorphism is not associated with an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia development.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2016. 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.
- ALPS, FAS, and beyond: from inborn errors of immunity to acquired immunodeficiencies.Annals of hematology · 2022Review
- Apoptosis in megakaryocytes: Safeguard and threat for thrombopoiesis.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- CD markers polymorphisms as prognostic biomarkers in hematological malignancies.Oncology reviews · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The association between the increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and Fas promoter polymorphisms has been reported previously; however, the results are inconclusive. The present study performed one case-control study to investigate the association, and a total of 98 AML patients and 2,014 healthy controls were genotyped. The data showed that the distribution of Fas-670AA, GA and GG genotypes among the AML patients were not significantly different from those of the healthy controls, all P>0.05. Following this a sub-study was conducted to analyze individuals who neither smoked nor drank. The results demonstrated that there was still no significant association between the Fas-670 polymorphism and risk of AML development, all P>0.05. Furthermore, in order to address a more accurate estimation of the association, a meta-analysis was conducted. Data were systematically collected from the Pubmed, EMBASE and the Wanfang Library. A total of 3 studies were included in this meta-analysis, which contained 1,144 AML cases and 3,806 controls. No significant association was detected between the Fas-670A>G polymorphism and AML risk [GA+GG vs. AA: odds ratio (OR) 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.09; GG vs. AA: OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82-1.24; GA vs. AA: OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94-1.32; GG vs. AA+GA: OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.12; G vs. A: OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12; all P>0.05). The analysis clearly indicated that there was no significant connection between the Fas-670A>G polymorphism and the increased risk of AML.
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.