SynthesisF1000Research2024
Differential Expression of Immunohistochemical Markers in Ameloblastoma & Ameloblastic Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of observational studies.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Differential Expression of Immunohistochemical Markers in Ameloblastoma & Ameloblastic Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of observational studies.F1000Research · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Long-Term Clinical Outcome of a Surgically Treated Ameloblastoma: Over a Decade of Follow-Up and Oral Rehabilitation.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Ameloblastic Carcinoma: A 40-Year Scoping Review of the Literature.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Alpha-tocopherol Levels in Predicting the Biological Behaviour of Ameloblastoma - A Comparative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Differentiating between ameloblastoma (AB) and ameloblastic carcinoma (AC) is difficult, especially when AB has atypical cytological characteristics or an uncommon clinical history. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the differential expression of immunohistochemical markers between AB and AC. Methods: We conducted a thorough search of PUBMED and SCOPUS according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify cross-sectional studies that compared the expression of immunohistochemical markers in AB and AC. We used a random-effects model to analyze the risk ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The Egger's test was used to assess publication bias. Results: In total, 301 articles were identified. After excluding irrelevant titles and abstracts, 86 articles were selected for full-text review. We categorized the 41 markers into proliferative and non-proliferative markers. Among non-proliferative markers, nuclear markers were differentially expressed in AB and AC. SOX2 was the only marker that significantly differentiated AB and AC, with an RR of -0.19 (CI 0.10-0.36, I2=0). Conclusion: The current evidence suggests the significance of SOX2 in differentiating between AB and AC, warranting prospective confirmation in well-defined extensive studies. We highlight the paucity of high-quality replicated studies of other markers in this field. Collaborative efforts with standardized techniques are necessary to generate clinically useful immunohistochemical markers.
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.