| Literature DB >> 33029509 |
Yanlin Song1,2, Jing Zhang1, Min He3, Jianguo Xu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have focused on the prognostic role of microRNA 222 in glioma. But different conclusions were drawn by these studies. We aimed to systematically evaluate the role of microRNA 222 in glioma by conducting a meta-analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33029509 PMCID: PMC7533000 DOI: 10.1155/2020/4689689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Selection process of studies.
Characteristics of the included articles.
| Author | Country | Sample | Number | Stage | Cut-off | Method | Results | HR (95% CI) |
| Quality score (NOS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen Y | China | Tissue | 114 | IV | None | Q-PCR | OS | 1.01 (0.65-1.58) | 0.965 | 9 |
| Zhang R | China | Blood | 51 | I-IV | None | Q-PCR | OS | 2.81 (1.70-4.65) | 0.0001 | 8 |
| Li X | China | Tissue | 45 | I-IV | Mean | Q-PCR | OS | 2.13 (1.01-4.48) | 0.043 | 8 |
| Zhang C | China | Tissue | 36 | I-IV | — | IHC | OS | 2.39 (1.15-4.96) | 0.02 | 8 |
| Sun C | USA | Tissue | 548 | IV | Median | — | OS | 1.68 (1.23-2.29) | 0.001 | 8 |
| Srinivasan S | USA | Tissue | 111 | IV | 60% | — | OS | 1.26 (1.11-1.43) | 0.0004 | 7 |
| Delfino K.R. | USA | Tissue | 253 | IV | — | — | OS | 2.14 (1.51-3.03) | <0.0001 | 7 |
| Zhao H | USA | Blood | 106 | IV | Median | — | DFS | 1.71 (1.07-3.63) | 0.038 | 7 |
| Chen W | USA | Tissue | 89 | IV | Median | — | DFS | 0.71 (0.46-1.09) | 0.12 | 7 |
| 102 | IV | Median | — | DFS | 1.11 (0.99-1.23) | 0.07 | 7 | |||
| 109 | IV | Median | — | DFS | 0.96 (0.86-1.08) | 0.53 | 7 |
HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; Q-PCR: quantitative polymerase chain reaction; IHC: immunohistochemistry; NOS: Newcastle–Ottawa scale.
Figure 2Pooled hazard ratio of higher microRNA 222 for overall survival (a) and disease-free survival (b) in patients with glioma.
Sensitivity analysis.
| Excluding article |
| Pooled HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Chen Y | 74.7%, 0.001 | 1.88 (1.39-2.54) |
| Zhang R | 66.5%, 0.011 | 1.58 (1.22-2.04) |
| Li X | 76.3%, 0.001 | 1.69 (1.26-2.25) |
| Zhang C | 75.4%, 0.001 | 1.67 (1.25-2.21) |
| Srinivasan S | 56.1%, <0.001 | 1.87 (1.40-2.49) |
| Delfino K.R. | 69.7%, 0.006 | 1.64 (1.22-2.19) |
| Sun C | 76.2%, 0.001 | 1.75 (1.25-2.45) |
HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Summary of meta-analysis results.
| Stratified study | Data sets | Pooled HR (95% CI) |
| Heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| OS | 7 | 1.72 (1.31-2.26) | <0.001 | 73.00% | 0.001 |
| DFS | 4 | 1.02 (0.86-1.22) | 0.807 | 65.90% | 0.032 |
| Country | |||||
| China | 4 | 1.90 (1.10-3.26) | 0.021 | 70.70% | 0.017 |
| USA | 3 | 1.61 (1.16-2.22) | 0.004 | 79.20% | 0.008 |
| Material | |||||
| Tissue | 6 | 1.58 (1.22-2.04) | 0.001 | 66.50% | 0.011 |
| Blood | 1 | 2.81 (1.7-4.65) | 0.0001 | — | — |
| Stage | |||||
| IV | 4 | 1.47 (1.11-1.94) | 0.007 | 73.70% | 0.01 |
| I-IV | 3 | 2.53 (1.76-3.63) | <0.001 | 0.00% | 0.82 |
| Method | |||||
| Q-PCR | 3 | 1.79 (0.90-3.57) | 0.099 | 78.80% | 0.009 |
| Immunohistochemistry scoring | 1 | 2.39 (1.15-4.96) | 0.02 | — | — |
| Sample size | |||||
| >100 | 4 | 1.47 (1.12-1.94) | 0.01 | 73.70% | 0.007 |
| <100 | 3 | 2.53 (1.76-3.63) | <0.001 | 0.00% | 0.82 |
HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; Q-PCR: quantitative polymerase chain reaction; IHC: immunohistochemistry.
Figure 3Begg's (a) and Egger's(b) publication bias plot of the included studies.