ArticleOncology letters2022
ABO blood classification and the risk of lung cancer: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Article in Oncology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ABO and Rhesus blood groups and multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Unique clinical features and transcriptomic profiling of carcinogenesis in patients with familial lung cancer in Yunnan Province, Wumeng mountains, China.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- ABO gene polymorphisms: a molecular bridge linking disease susceptibility to therapeutic outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Differential expression ofJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 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
Patients with certain ABO classifications are at increased risk of certain types of malignancies. In the present study, a meta-analysis was performed to explore the association between the ABO blood group and the risk of lung cancer from an evidence-based medical perspective. The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Wanfang databases were searched for relevant papers. Review Manger 5.4 was used to analyze the association between the ABO blood group and the risk of lung cancer. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) was used to determine whether the sample size of the meta-analysis was sufficient. A total of 29 studies were included in this paper. The results of the case-controlled studies showed that the proportion of patients with blood type A in patients with lung cancer was significantly higher than that in healthy individuals [odds ratio (OR), 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.19]. Based on the subgroup analysis, type A blood showed heterogeneity in ethnicity and source of control (social or hospital). Additionally, type O blood was determined to be a protective factor for lung cancer in Caucasians (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99). TSA results suggested that there were sufficient participants in the case-controlled studies. Overall, the results of the cohort studies showed that the risk of lung cancer and blood type were weakly associated, and that the difference was not statistically significant. The case-controlled studies suggested that blood type A was associated with a higher risk of lung cancer. In addition, the analysis confirmed that Caucasians with type O blood had a lower risk of lung cancer. However, prospective cohort studies have not been able to draw this conclusion. Different experimental designs may have had a notable influence on the results obtained.
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.