ArticleMeta gene2016
African vs. Caucasian and Asian difference for the association of interleukin-10 promotor polymorphisms with type 2 diabetes mellitus (a meta-analysis study).
Article in Meta gene, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival and Clinicopathological Significance of SIRT1 Expression in Cancers: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019Pooled it
- Genetic polymorphisms of IL-17A rs2275913, rs3748067 and IL-17F rs763780 in gastric cancer risk: evidence from 8124 cases and 9873 controls.Molecular biology reports · 2018Pooled it
- Genetic Contributions of Inflammation to Depression.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2017Pooled it
- The role of SIRT1 in autophagy and drug resistance: unveiling new targets and potential biomarkers in cancer therapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterleukin-10 (IL-10) is a multifunctional regulatory cytokine that might be associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). IL-10 gene polymorphisms have been reported to be associated with T2DM in several ethnic populations with controversial results.
objectivesThis work is an updated meta-analysis aiming at the evaluation of the association between IL-10 gene polymorphisms: rs1800872 (- 592 C > A), rs1800896 (- 1082 A > G) and rs1800871 (- 819 C > T) with the risk of T2DM.
methodsAll available full text studies published up to July 2015 were included in this meta-analysis. Mainly Pubmed and Science Direct databases were searched for all eligible studies pertinent to testing the association between IL-10 gene polymorphisms with the susceptibility to T2DM. Further analyses of the pooled and stratified data in terms of individual polymorphic types and subject ethnicity were done and assessed using varied genetic models.
resultsFifteen case-control studies with a total of 26 comparisons (10 for IL-10 - 592 C > A rs1800872, 11 for IL-10 - 1082 A > G rs1800896 and 5 for IL-10 - 819 C > T rs1800871 polymorphisms) met our inclusion criteria. IL-10 - 1082 A > G polymorphism was the only one to show an association with T2DM in all pooled sample particularly among Asian and European (high frequency of the G allele) ethnic groups. On the other hand, IL-10 - 592 C > A and - 819 C > T were significantly associated with T2DM only among African subjects.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrated that IL-10 - 1082 A > G polymorphism was associated with increased risk of development of T2DM in total subjects no matter was their ethnic background, while both IL-10 - 592 C > A and - 819 C > T polymorphisms were associated with that risk only among African subjects.
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.