Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27069297›Full record

SynthesisDisease markers2016

Diagnosis and Prognostic Significance of c-Met in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Jifeng Peng, Shengnan Qi, Ping Wang, Wanyu Li, Chunxia Liu, Feng Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Disease markers, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Proteomic Screening for Serum Biomarkers for Cervical Cancer and Their Clinical Significance.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Jifeng PengDepartment of Pathology, Shihezi University School of Medicine and The Key Laboratories for Xinjiang Endemic and Ethnic Diseases, Chinese Ministry of Education, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832002, China.
Shengnan QiDepartment of Pathology, Shihezi University School of Medicine and The Key Laboratories for Xinjiang Endemic and Ethnic Diseases, Chinese Ministry of Education, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832002, China.
Ping WangDepartment of Pathology, Shihezi University School of Medicine and The Key Laboratories for Xinjiang Endemic and Ethnic Diseases, Chinese Ministry of Education, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832002, China.
Wanyu LiDepartment of Pathology, Shihezi University School of Medicine and The Key Laboratories for Xinjiang Endemic and Ethnic Diseases, Chinese Ministry of Education, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832002, China.
Chunxia LiuDepartment of Pathology, Shihezi University School of Medicine and The Key Laboratories for Xinjiang Endemic and Ethnic Diseases, Chinese Ministry of Education, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832002, China; Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Shihezi University School of Medicine, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832002, China.
Feng LiDepartment of Pathology, Shihezi University School of Medicine and The Key Laboratories for Xinjiang Endemic and Ethnic Diseases, Chinese Ministry of Education, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832002, China; Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Shihezi University School of Medicine, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832002, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA meta-analysis was conducted to analyze c-Met expression in cervical cancer.

methodsArticles related to our study were retrieved from PubMed, Elsevier, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. State 12.0 was used for literature review, data extraction, and meta-analysis. The random-effects model and fixed-effects model were utilized to pool the relative ratio based on the heterogeneity test in the meta-analysis.

resultsNine studies that include data of 685 cervical carcinoma tissues were analyzed. However, three studies did not thoroughly discuss c-Met expression in nonneoplastic cervical tissue; thus, only six studies involving 364 patients and 228 nonneoplastic cervical tissues were included in the review. c-Met expression was higher in cervical cancer (60.99%) than in nonneoplastic cervical tissue (19.74%). Cervical carcinoma, cervical intraepithelial neoplasm, and normal cervical tissue were also examined. Results showed that increasing malignancy resulted in elevated c-Met expression. The relationship between c-Met expression and clinicopathologic features was also evaluated. c-Met expression correlated with disease-free survival, lymph node involvement, and lymphovascular space invasion. No statistical difference was observed between c-Met expression and other clinicopathological factors.

conclusionsc-Met is a potential diagnostic and prognostic indicator of cervical cancer.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorFemaleGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisProto-Oncogene Proteins c-metSurvival AnalysisUp-RegulationUterine Cervical NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorMET protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins c-met

Identifiers

PMID27069297
PMCPMC4812361

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.