SynthesisOncotarget2016
Prognostic value of microRNA-9 in cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Red Blood Cell Distribution Width Is Associated with All-Cause Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with Cardiogenic Shock.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
- The microRNA miR-192/215 family is upregulated in mucinous ovarian carcinomas.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- MicroRNAs as Potential Biomarkers in Merkel Cell Carcinoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies revealed that different microRNA-9 (miR-9) expressions were associated with prognoses of different cancers. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic value of miR-9. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (last update by November 30, 2015) were searched for literatures. A total of 17 studies from 16 articles were finally qualified and enrolled in this meta-analysis. Pooled analyses showed that a higher expression of miR-9 might predict poor overall survival (HR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.39 - 3.41, P < 0.001 (7.23 * 10-4)), disease-free survival (HR: 5.22, 95% CI: 2.17 - 12.53, P < 0.001 (2.21 * 10-4)), and recurrence-free survival (HR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.32 - 1.85, P < 0.001 (1.80*10-7)) in various carcinomas. However, results of subgroup analyses revealed that down-regulated miR-9 was associated with poor overall survival (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.28 - 0.73, P < 0.001 (1.13*10-3)) and progress-free survival (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.34 - 0.62, P < 0.001 (5.03*10-7)) in ovarian cancer patients. By subgroup analyses we also found that sample collecting time and patients' origin had little influence on the result of OS. These results indicate that in most cancer types the highly expressed miR-9 is associated with poor survival of patients, whereas the down-regulated miR-9 may predict poor prognosis in patients with ovarian cancer.
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.