| Literature DB >> 30046309 |
Prageet K Sachdev1, Jeanne Freeland-Graves1, S Natasha Beretvas2, Namrata Sanjeevi1.
Abstract
Oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is a potentially malignant disorder which causes fibrosis and inflammation of the oral mucosa. Studies have reported altered levels of trace elements in oral submucous fibrosis subjects, but findings have been inconsistent. The objective of this research is to perform a meta-analysis to summarize studies that report zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), and iron (Fe) in patients, with and without OSF. A literature search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases was conducted for studies up to January 2017. A total of 34 reports met the inclusion criteria. The standardized mean difference was utilized as the effect size. The robust variance estimation method was chosen to handle dependency of multiple related outcomes in meta-analysis. There was a significant increase in the levels of Cu (effect size = 1.17, p value < 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.164-2.171) and a significant decrease in levels of Zn (effect size = -1.95, p value < 0.05, 95% CI: -3.524 to -0.367) and Fe (effect size = -2.77, p value < 0.01, 95% CI: -4.126 to -1.406) in OSF patients. The estimation of Zn, Cu, and Fe levels may serve as additional biomarkers in the diagnosis and prognosis of OSF along with the clinical features.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30046309 PMCID: PMC6038491 DOI: 10.1155/2018/3472087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Figure 1Flowchart illustrating the process of study selection for the meta-analysis.
Characteristics and moderators of studies included in the meta-analysis investigating differences in levels of zinc, copper, and iron between healthy controls and subjects with oral submucous fibrosis.
| Author, year (reference) | Biomarker | Age | Men (%) | Sample size ( | Effect size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient | Control | Zinc | Copper | Iron | ||||
| Gupta et al., 1987 [ | Serum | 35 | 65 | 40 | 10 | 0.112 | 1.264 | —b |
| Varghese et al., 1987 [ | Serum | 38.85 | 16 | 50 | 50 | −3.800 | −6.541 | —b |
| Rajendran et al., 1992 [ | Serum | —a | —a | 50 | 50 | —b | —b | −30.170 |
| Anuradha and Devi, 1995 [ | Plasma | —a | —a | 22 | 22 | −5.436 | −5.730 | −8.461 |
| Luqumun et al., 2003 [ | Serum | 17–40 | 67 | 15 | 15 | —b | 1.846 | −0.349 |
| Pillai and Burde, 2005 [ | Serum | 23.40 | —a | 40 | 31 | —b | −0.427 | —b |
| Khanna and Karjodkar, 2006 [ | Serum | 25–70 | 83 | 30 | 30 | —b | 0.862 | −3.156 |
| Nayak et al., 2010 [ | Serum | 22–60 | 95 | 20 | 20 | −0.345 | −0.404 | —b |
| Balpande and Sathawane, 2010 [ | Serum | —a | —a | 30 | 30 | −2.386 | 4.572 | −8.975 |
| Shettar, 2010 [ | Serum | 29.60 | 80 | 30 | 30 | −1.806 | 0.975 | —b |
| Tadakamadla et al., 2011 [ | Serum | 18–70 | 90 | 50 | 50 | —b | 1.145 | −0.579 |
| Ayinamudi and Narsimhan, 2012 [ | Serum | 23–62 | 67 | 15 | 6 | 0.959 | 1.683 | —b |
| Shetty et al., 2012 [ | Serum | —a | —a | 65 | 21 | —b | —b | −0.452 |
| Shetty et al., 2012 [ | Saliva | —a | —a | 65 | 21 | —b | —b | −0.399 |
| Hegde et al., 2012 [ | Serum | 26.85 | 85 | 15 | 60 | —b | —b | −3.501 |
| Neethi et al., 2013 [ | Serum | 36.53 | 73 | 30 | 30 | −0.521 | 0.758 | —b |
| Khanna et al., 2013 [ | Serum | 36.85 | —a | 30 | 30 | 0.216 | 0.809 | —b |
| Kode and Karjodkar, 2013 [ | Serum | —a | —a | 30 | 15 | 1.424 | 0.205 | −0.642 |
| Kode and Karjodkar, 2013 [ | Saliva | —a | —a | 30 | 15 | 0.497 | 0.512 | −0.517 |
| Kapoora et al., 2013 [ | Serum | 15–55 | 84 | 50 | 50 | −17.943 | 83.349 | −37.786 |
| Shetty et al., 2013 [ | Serum | —a | 94 | 50 | 50 | −4.932 | —b | −9.023 |
| Hosthor et al., 2014 [ | Serum | —a | —a | 30 | 30 | −4.612 | 6.336 | −4.729 |
| Gurprasad et al., 2014 [ | Serum | 32.5 | 90 | 50 | 35 | —b | —b | −2.853 |
| Shetty et al., 2015 [ | Saliva | —a | —a | 50 | 50 | −2.485 | 10.989 | −14.582 |
| Yadav et al., 2015 [ | Saliva | 28.6 | 84 | 50 | 50 | −1.112 | 1.644 | —b |
| Okade et al., 2015 [ | Saliva | 24.3 | 97 | 30 | 30 | —b | 0.291 | −1.862 |
| Hafeez et al., 2015 [ | Serum | 49 | 88.8 | 89 | 89 | —b | —b | −0.601 |
| Saurabh et al., 2015 [ | Serum | 18–45 | 83.3 | 30 | 30 | —b | —b | −3.901 |
| Srilekha, 2015 [ | Serum | 30–50 | 60 | 22 | 22 | −0.223 | 2.545 | —b |
| Mohammed et al., 2016 [ | Saliva | 32.73 | 90 | 30 | 30 | —b | 1.772 | —b |
| Kallalli et al., 2016 [ | Serum | 20–60 | 78 | 30 | 10 | —b | —b | −7.002 |
| Tiwari et al., 2016 [ | Serum | 41.1 | 75 | 40 | 30 | —b | 2.349 | −2.074 |
| More and Patel, 2016 [ | Serum | 32.43 | 73 | 30 | 30 | −10.576 | 3.015 | —b |
| Kumar et al., 2016 [ | Serum | 42.6 | 89 | 35 | 35 | —b | 0.927 | −0.508 |
| Bhardwaj et al., 2016 [ | Serum | 16–65 | 83 | 40 | 40 | —b | —b | −2.085 |
| Thakur and Guttikonda, 2017 [ | Serum | —a | —a | 40 | 40 | —b | —b | −1.966 |
aNot reported in the primary study. bNot measured in the primary study.
Zn/Cu ratios calculated from different studies.
| Reference | Biomarker | Controls | OSMF | Total sample | Difference in Zn/Cu (OSMF-control) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gupta et al. [ | Serum | 0.87 | 0.72 | 50 | −0.15 |
| Varghese et al. [ | Serum | 0.92 | 0.85 | 100 | −0.07 |
| Nayak et al. [ | Serum | 0.88 | 0.92 | 40 | 0.04 |
| Balpande and Sathawane [ | Serum | 1.72 | 1.09 | 60 | −0.63 |
| Ayinamudi and Narsimhan [ | Serum | 0.05 | 0.04 | 21 | −0.01 |
| Shettar [ | Serum | 0.96 | 0.76 | 60 | −0.2 |
| Neethi et al. [ | Serum | 0.73 | 0.7 | 60 | −0.03 |
| Khanna et al. [ | Serum | 1.47 | 1.32 | 60 | −0.15 |
| Kode and Karjodkar [ | Serum | 1.48 | 2.05 | 45 | 0.57 |
| Kode and Karjodkar [ | Saliva | 13.23 | 14.7 | 45 | 1.47 |
| Hosthor et al. [ | Serum | 0.77 | 0.19 | 60 | −0.58 |
| Shetty et al. [ | Saliva | 0.78 | 0.28 | 100 | −0.5 |
| Yadav et al. [ | Saliva | 1.19 | 0.47 | 100 | −0.72 |
| More and Patel [ | Serum | 2.92 | 0.86 | 60 | −2.06 |
Cu/Fe ratios calculated from studies included.
| Reference | Biomarker | Controls | OSMF | Total sample | Difference in Zn/Cu (OSMF-control) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anuradha and Devi [ | Plasma | 1.2 | 2 | 44 | 0.8 |
| Luqumun et al. [ | Serum | 1.06 | 1.37 | 30 | 0.31 |
| Khanna and Karjodkar [ | Serum | 1.11 | 1.26 | 60 | 0.15 |
| Balpande and Sathawane [ | Serum | 1.22 | 2.09 | 60 | 0.87 |
| Tadakmadla et al. [ | Serum | 0.88 | 1.16 | 100 | 0.28 |
| Kode and Karjodkar [ | Serum | 0.99 | 1.36 | 45 | 0.37 |
| Kode and Karjodkar [ | Saliva | 0.11 | 0.33 | 45 | 0.22 |
| Hosthor et al. [ | Serum | 1.06 | 5.25 | 60 | 4.19 |
| Shetty et al. [ | Saliva | 0.61 | 2.45 | 100 | 1.84 |
| Okade et al. [ | Saliva | 0.1 | 1.75 | 60 | 1.65 |
| Tiwari et al. [ | Serum | 0.99 | 1.25 | 70 | 0.26 |
| Kumar et al. [ | Serum | 0.89 | 1.15 | 70 | 0.26 |
Figure 2Forest plot of pooled effect size estimates and 95% confidence intervals representing differences in levels of salivary, serum, or plasma zinc between oral submucous fibrosis patients and healthy controls.
Figure 3Forest plot of pooled effect size estimates and 95% confidence intervals representing differences in levels of salivary, serum, or plasma copper between oral submucous fibrosis patients and healthy controls.
Figure 4Forest plot of pooled effect size estimates and 95% confidence intervals representing differences in levels of salivary, serum, or plasma iron between oral submucous fibrosis patients and healthy controls.