ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2024
Investigation of
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- PDCD1 gene polymorphisms linked with altered risk of female-specific hormone-dependent cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Polymorphisms and overexpression of immune checkpoints PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4 in DLBCL: biomarker insights from a case-control study.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the possible association of two single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), PD-1.3 (+7146G/A) and PD-1.5 (+7785C/T), with endometrial cancer (EC) susceptibility. In addition, the correlations between these SNPs and available clinicopathologic characteristics of patients with EC were investigated. Materials and Methods: In this case-control study, 147 women with pathologically confirmed EC and 258 age- and ethnically matched healthy women were enrolled between June 2019 and May 2022. Genomic DNA was extracted, and genotyping of PD-1.3 (+7146G/A) and PD-1.5 (+7785C/T) SNPs was performed. Haplotype analysis was also performed. Pearson's chi-square test with Yates correction was used to evaluate differences in allele and genotype distributions. The 95% confidence interval and odds ratio were determined using an unconditional logistic regression model. Results: There were no remarkable differences in the allele and genotype distributions of PD-1.3 (rs11568821) and PD-1.5 (rs2227981) between healthy controls and EC patients. However, there was a remarkable difference in the AC haplotype between the control and EC groups. No association was found between the investigated SNPs and the clinicopathologic features of EC. Conclusion: Our results indicated that the aforementioned SNPs were not related to the risk of EC in the southern Iranian population.
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.