SynthesisPloS one2021
Evaluation of association studies and a systematic review and meta-analysis of CYP1A1 T3801C and A2455G polymorphisms in breast cancer risk.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. 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, 3 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
backgroundNine previous meta-analyses have been published to analyze the CYP1A1 T3801C and A2455G polymorphisms with BC risk. However, they did not assess the credibility of statistically significant associations. In addition, many new studies have been reported on the above themes. Hence, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to further explore the above issues.
objectivesTo explore the association on the CYP1A1 T3801C and A2455G polymorphisms with BC risk.
methodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (The PRISMA) were used.
resultsIn this study, there were 63 case-control studies from 56 publications on the CYP1A1 T3801C polymorphism (including 20,825 BC cases and 25,495 controls) and 51 case-control studies from 46 publications on the CYP1A1 A2455G polymorphism (including 20,124 BC cases and 29,183 controls). Overall, the CYP1A1 T3801C polymorphism was significantly increased BC risk in overall analysis, especially in Asians and Indians; the CYP1A1 A2455G polymorphism was associated with BC risk in overall analysis, Indians, and postmenopausal women. However, when we used BFDP correction, associations remained significant only in Indians (CC vs. TT + TC: BFDP < 0.001) for the CYP1A1 T3801C polymorphism with BC risk, but not in the CYP1A1 A2455G polymorphism. In addition, when we further performed sensitivity analysis, no significant association in overall analysis and any subgroup. Moreover, we found that all studies from Indians was low quality. Therefore, the results may be not credible.
conclusionThis meta-analysis strongly indicates that there is no significant association between the CYP1A1 T3801C and A2455G polymorphisms and BC risk. The increased BC risk may most likely on account of false-positive results.
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.