| Title |
XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphism and ovarian cancer risk: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-013-1357-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yulan Yan, Hongjie Liang, Ruolin Li, Li Xie, Meng Li, Shan Li, Xue Qin |
| Abstract |
Genetic polymorphism of X-ray repair crosscomplementing group 3 (XRCC3) Thr241Met has been implicated to alter the risk of ovarian cancer, but the results are controversial. In order to get a more precise result, a meta-analysis was performed. All eligible studies were identified through an extensive search in PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database before August 2013. The association between the XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphism and ovarian cancer risk was conducted by odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Finally, a total of four publications including seven studies with 3,635 cases and 5,473 controls were included in our meta-analysis. Overall, there was no association between XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphism and risk of ovarian cancer under all five genetic models in overall population (T vs. C: OR = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.960-1.03, P = 0.752; TT vs. CC: OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.91-1.10, P = 0.943; TC vs. TT: OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.92-1.04, P = 0.396, Fig. 1; TT vs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 33% |
| Researcher | 4 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 40% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 20% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
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 25 November 2013.
All research outputs
#20,210,424
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,834
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,739
of 302,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#60
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 302,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.