Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28177889›Full record

SynthesisOncotarget2017

Prognostic role of vascular endothelial growth factor in cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.

Jing Zhang, Jiaming Liu, Chenjing Zhu, Jialing He, Jinna Chen, Yunliu Liang, Feng Yang, Xin Wu, Xuelei Ma

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Enhanced Tumor-to-Background Contrast with [Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Jing ZhangState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu 610041, PR China.
Jiaming LiuState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu 610041, PR China.
Chenjing ZhuState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu 610041, PR China.
Jialing HeState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu 610041, PR China.
Jinna ChenState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu 610041, PR China.
Yunliu LiangState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu 610041, PR China.
Feng YangState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu 610041, PR China.
Xin WuState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu 610041, PR China.
Xuelei MaState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu 610041, PR China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prognostic role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in cervical cancer is controversial to date. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of VEGF and VEGF-C in patients with cervical cancer. Relevant studies were identified by systematic search of the PubMed and Embase database. The primary data of eligible studies was hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of survival outcomes, including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Pooled HR (95% CI) was calculated to evaluate the prognostic role of VEGF and VEGF-C in cervical cancer patients. The methodological qualities of the included studies were assessed using REMARK. Fourteen eligible articles including 1306 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled HRs (95% CIs) of VEGF for OS and DFS/PFS were 2.29 [1.27, 4.14] and 2.77 [1.37, 5.62], respectively. The HR (95% CI) of VEGF-C for OS was 3.94 [2.22, 6.99]. This meta-analysis suggested that high expressions of VEGF and VEGF-C were significantly associated with poor survival outcome in cervical cancer patients.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisSurvival AnalysisUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AVEGFA protein, humancervical cancerprognosisVEGF

Identifiers

PMID28177889
PMCPMC5421889

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.