SynthesisMedicine2018
Genetic polymorphisms of ERCC-1 and ERCC-2 are not prognostic markers in osteosarcoma patients with chemotherapy: A meta-analysis in Chinese population.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo make an accurate estimation of the association of ERCC1 and ERCC2 polymorphisms with osteosarcoma (OS) prognosis in Chinese population.
methodsTotal 7 qualified studies with 1404 osteosarcoma patients were included. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs were pooled for the survival rate in different osteosarcoma patients with ERCC1 and ERCC2 genetic polymorphisms. The heterogeneity was assessed by I test. Potential publication bias was assessed by Begg funnel plot and Egger linear regression test.
resultsIn rs11615, no significant association was found under dominant [TT+TC vs. CC: OR = 1.252, 95% CI:0.864-1.815, P = .235], recessive [TT vs. TC+CC: OR = 0.850, 95% CI: 0.695-1.030, P = .095] or allelic model [T vs. C Allele: OR = 1.219, 95% CI: 0.922-1.612, P = .165]. In rs13181, no significant association was found under dominant [AA+AC vs. CC: OR = 1.031, 95% CI: 0.800-1.329, P = .801], recessive [AA vs. AC+CC: OR = 1.005, 95% CI: 0.875, 1.154, P = .944] or allelic model [A vs. C Allele: OR = 1.009, 95% CI: 0.903-1.128, P = .870]. In rs1799793, no significant association was found under dominant [GG+GA vs. AA: OR = 1.134, 95% CI: 0.884-1.454, P = .322, recessive [GG vs. AG+AA: OR = 1.025, 95% CI: 0.881-1.192, P = .750], or allelic model [G vs. A Allele: OR = 1.046, 95% CI: 0.930-1.177, P = .450].
conclusionThis study did not support rs11615, rs13181 or rs1799793 to be used as surrogate markers for clinical outcome of osteosarcoma with chemotherapy.
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.