SynthesisMedicine2017
Prognostic evaluation of microRNA-210 in various carcinomas: Evidence from 19 studies.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of T2DM on cancer progression: pivotal precipitating factors and underlying mechanisms.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Review
- Article
- Circulating MiRNA-373 as a Predictor of Response to Super-selective Transarterial Chemoembolization Bridging Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Awaiting Liver Transplantation.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Prognostic and diagnostic values of non-coding RNAs as biomarkers for breast cancer: An umbrella review and pan-cancer analysis.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023Article
- Involvement of LDL and ox-LDL in Cancer Development and Its Therapeutical Potential.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Review
- miRNAs and Long-term Breast Cancer Survival: Evidence from the WHEL Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019Article
- miR-210 promotes progression of endometrial carcinoma by regulating the expression of NFIX.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe performed this meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the role of MicroRNA-210 (miR-210) expression on the overall survival (OS) rate of cancers.
methodsWe searched for relevant available literatures on miR-210 and cancer until November 1st, 2016 on the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct database. We calculated the pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS, which compared the high and low expression levels of miR-210 in patients of the available studies. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the specific role of miR-210 in ethnicity and the type of cancers. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg funnel plots and Egger regression test.
resultsOverall, 19 studies were involved in this meta-analysis. The result indicated that upregulated miR-210 might be associated with poor OS outcome in various carcinomas, with the pooled HR of 1.80 (95% CI: 1.29-2.51). When stratified by disease, significant results were detected in breast cancer (HR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.24-5.76) and glioma (HR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.32-4.43). Besides, in the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, significant results were detected only in Asian populations (HR = 2.14, 95% CI: 1.37-3.34).
conclusionThe present meta-analysis suggests that high expressed miR-210 is significantly associated with OS in cancer patients, which has the potential to be a prognostic marker in cancers.
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.