| Title |
Prognostic significance of Epstein–Barr virus DNA in NK/T-cell lymphoma: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s153942 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qian Fei, Xiao-Kang Tian, Jing Wu, Hong-Ming Zhu, Yan Wang, Fan-Yu Peng, Wen-Jun Zhang, Li Yin, Xia He |
| Abstract |
Extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma is closely associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection. However, the prognostic value of EBV-DNA in extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma remains unclear. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate its prognostic significance. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were used to search for studies conducted until June 12, 2017. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate the prognostic value of pretreatment EBV-DNA on the overall survival of extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma. Seven eligible studies on 356 patients with extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma were pooled for this meta-analysis. Results suggested that the pretreatment EBV-DNA positivity was significantly correlated with the overall survival of extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma (pooled HR =3.78, 95% CI: 1.52-9.40,p=0.004; heterogeneity test:I2=52%,p=0.05). Subgroup analyses stratified by sample type, survival analysis mode, and HR origin showed that patients with positive pretreatment EBV-DNA had poorer prognosis than those with negative pretreatment EBV-DNA. Moreover, the cut-off value (HR =1.66; 95% CI: 0.73-3.73;p=0.22) might account for the heterogeneity. No significant publication bias was observed. Pretreatment EBV-DNA positivity can predict poor prognosis for patients with extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma. Future large-scale studies based on prognostic significance of EBV-DNA for patients with extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma are necessary. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 20% |
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 60% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
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 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,597
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#343,060
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#42
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.