| Title |
PTEN gene mutations correlate to poor prognosis in glioma patients: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s99942 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Feng Han, Rong Hu, Hua Yang, Jian Liu, Jianmei Sui, Xin Xiang, Fan Wang, Liangzhao Chu, Shibin Song |
| Abstract |
We conducted this meta-analysis based on eligible trials to investigate the relationship between phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) genetic mutation and glioma patients' survival. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies regarding the relationship between PTEN genetic mutation and glioma patients' survival. The primary outcome was the overall survival of glioma patient with or without PTEN genetic mutation, and second outcome was prognostic factors for the survival of glioma patient. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was used to pool the estimates according to the heterogeneity among the included studies. Nine cohort studies, involving 1,173 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results suggested that glioma patients with PTEN genetic mutation had a significant shorter overall survival than those without PTEN genetic mutation (hazard ratio [HR] =2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35, 3.67; P=0.002). Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicated that this association was only observed in American patients (HR =2.19, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.89; P=0.008), but not in Chinese patients (HR =1.44, 95% CI: 0.29, 7.26; P=0.657). Histopathological grade (HR =1.42, 95% CI: 0.07, 28.41; P=0.818), age (HR =0.94, 95% CI: 0.43, 2.04; P=0.877), and sex (HR =1.28, 95% CI: 0.55, 2.98; P=0.564) were not significant prognostic factors for the survival of patients with glioma. Current evidence indicates that PTEN genetic mutation is associated with poor prognosis in glioma patients. However, this finding is derived from data in observational studies, potentially subject to selection bias, and hence well conducted, high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 37 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 36 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 December 2023.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#547
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,825
of 353,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#27
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 353,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.