SynthesisPloS one2022
Prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in patients with salivary gland carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Independent roles of autophagy and apoptosis in post-apocrine-secretion cell death of salivary glands during Drosophila metamorphosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Efficacy and survival of photodynamic treatment for tracheal adenoid cystic carcinoma: a two-center retrospective analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring Immunological Effects and Novel Immune Adjuvants in Immunotherapy for Salivary Gland Cancers.Cancers · 2024Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) has been recognized as a potential marker in several cancers, the relationship between PD-L1 expression and survival in patients with salivary gland carcinoma (SGC) has remained unclear. We aimed to evaluate the association of PD-L1 expression with clinicopathological features and prognosis in SGC patients.
methodsThe databases Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched for relevant studies that detected PD-L1 expression in SGC. The meta-analysis was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), and the reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK) was used to assess the quality of research eligible for this meta-analysis. Included studies were assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to estimate the correlation between PD-L1 expression and clinicopathological features. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CI were applied to assess the association between PD-L1 expression and survival outcomes of patients.
resultsA total of ten studies (including 952 patients with SGC) were evaluated. The meta-analysis showed that positive PD-L1 expression in SGC was significantly associated with male patients, older age, Tumor stage, lymph node metastasis, high pathological grade, and non-adenoid cystic carcinoma subtype. The pooled data demonstrated that high PD-L1 expression was associated with poor overall survival and disease-free survival. There was no significant correlation between PD-L1 expression and progression-free survival or disease-specific survival of SGC patients.
conclusionAccording to the meta-analysis, positive PD-L1 expression may play an important role as an effective marker of poor prognosis in patients with SGC. However, large-scale, prospective investigations are still needed to confirm the findings. The assessment of PD-L1 expression may aid in the personalized management of SGC.
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.