| Title |
Prognostic role of microRNA-203 in various carcinomas: evidence from a meta-analysis involving 13 studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-3225-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ying Liang, Wenhui Yang, Yanhui Zhu, Yulin Yuan |
| Abstract |
Growing evidence from recent studies has revealed that microRNA-203 (miR-203) might be an attractive prognostic biomarker for cancer. But controversy still remains. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize available evidences and clarify the preliminary predictive value of miR-203 for prognosis in cancer patients. Eligible studies were identified through multiple research strategies in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science up to October 2015. Key statistics such as pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to calculate patient survival. 13 eligible studies with 1600 patients were ultimately enrolled in this meta-analysis. Our results failed to show a significant relation between upregulated miR-203 expression and a favorable overall survival (OS) (HR 1.00, 95 % CI 0.65-1.36) in a random effect model. However, in subgroup analysis, we found that high expression of miR-203 was significantly associated with poor OS in Caucasian patients (HR 1.31, 95 % CI 1.06-1.55). In contrast, for Asian patients, over-expression of miR-203 was an independent prognostic factor for better and OS (HR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.22-0.96). It also suggested that cancer types and miRNA assay method were significant associated with prognosis. The over-expression of miR-203 was effectively predictive of worse prognosis in breast cancer (HR 6.35, 95 % CI 1.34-11.36), pancreatic cancer (HR 1.19, 95 % CI 1.08-1.30), ependymoma (HR 1.35, 95 % CI 1.10-1.61), but for glioma patients, elevated miR-203 is a potential biomarker for predicting better progression of cancer (HR 0.26, 95 % CI -0.02 to 0.54). Besides, for direct miRNA profiling studies, over-expression of miR-203 was an independent prognostic factor for worse OS (HR 6.35, 95 % CI 1.34-11.36). This meta-analysis indicated that ethnicity, tumor type and miRNA assay method mainly contributed to heterogeneity. Considering the insufficient evidence, further relevant studies are warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,301
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,190
of 330,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#140
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.