ReviewCaspian journal of internal medicine2020
KRAS and BRAF mutations in Iranian colorectal cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- KRAS mutation and its association with clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer patients in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of the relation of CD133 expression measured by immunohistochemistry assay with the survival of the colorectal cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Prediction of anticancer drug sensitivity using an interpretable model guided by deep learning.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Anti-inflammatory and Apoptotic Effects of Levisticum Officinale Koch Extracts on HT 29 and Caco-2 Human Colorectal Carcinoma Cell Lines.Galen medical journal · 2024Article
- Frequency ofFrontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMutations in the EGFR signaling pathway play an important role in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Mutations in these genes, like KRAS and BRAF, affect the treatment strategies and associated with poor prognosis and relative resistance to anti-EGFR therapies. Our aim was to conduct a systematic and meta-analysis on all studies that have been conducted on the prevalence of these gene mutations in Iranian CRC patients.
methodsFour science citation index databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane library) and local databases were searched up to March 2018 with related keywords. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted the data. Quality of all included studies was assessed using an adapted checklist from STROBE. A random-effect model was used to calculate the total prevalence of KRAS and BRAF mutations in CRC subjects by the event rate (ER). Meta-regression was utilized to explore heterogeneity causes.
resultsIn total, from 573 records, 23 eligible studies (2662 patients) were included for data extraction and analysis. In 18 of 23 included studies, the prevalence of KRAS mutations was 33.9% (95% CI=30.1-37.9) with I2=65.17 (p<0.001). The occurrence of KRAS mutations in codon 12 and 13 was 76.9% (95% CI = 70.4-82.3%) with I2=84.88 (p<0.001) and 23.5% (95% CI=17.9-30.3) with I2=85.85 (p<0.001), respectively. In 9 of 23 studies, the BRAF mutation rate was 3.2% (95% CI=0.003-13.6) with I2=88.61 (p<0.001).
conclusionThe prevalence of these mutations in CRC patients shows a significant difference in the different regions of Iran, which is probably due to environmental and racial factors.
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.