SynthesisSystematic reviews2024
The secretor status of blood group antigens in the saliva in people with oral cancers: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- ABO blood group antigens in saliva - A cross sectional study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman ABO blood group type and the antigenic secretor status are hypothesized to associate with oral diseases including oral cancer. Secretor status is the ability of individuals to secrete blood group antigens into body fluids. This study aimed to evaluate the secretor status of ABO antigens of saliva in patients with oral cancers or oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) relative to healthy adults.
methodsA systematic and comprehensive online search from inception to April 28, 2022, was carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Emcare. The language was limited to English. Yielded records were screened by two independent reviewers at the title and abstract phase and at full-text screening. Studies investigating adults (≥ 18 years) with oral cancers or oral potentially malignant disorders compared to adults free of oral cancer were included in this study. Data were extracted according to the planned objectives. Methodological quality was assessed, and the findings were analyzed narratively. Meta-analyses were conducted to pool the odds of the non-secretor status of oral cancers and OPMDs compared to healthy adults.
resultsThe search included a total of 34 studies from three databases. Nine duplicates were removed. During the title and abstract screening, 11 irrelevant studies were excluded. Twelve studies were screened during the full-text screening, and eight articles were eligible to be included in the final analysis. A pooled odds ratio (OR) of 3.80 (95%CI, 1.53-9.44) was estimated when pooled 1254 oral cancers and oral potentially malignant disorders patients compared to 666 healthy adults. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThe odds of being a non-secretor appear to be approximately 3.8 times higher in patients with oral cancers and oral potentially malignant disorders compared to healthy adults. The lack of ABO blood group antigens in body fluids of non-secretors is more exposed to exogenous antigens than secretors. The host-parasite interactions of secretors and non-secretors underlying oral cancer and other diseases may be evidence to support or refuse them. Clinicians may use the secretor status as a detection test during their regular oral check-ups for high-risk populations for oral cancers. Non-secretors can be given more attention considering them as high-risk groups, and in terms of prognosis, differences between these two groups may be expected.
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.