| Title |
Quantitative assessment of the association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-013-1196-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ling Zhou, Yuangang Lu, Guihong Yang, Jinjin Wu |
| Abstract |
Previous studies evaluating the association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk reported conflicting findings. We searched PubMed and Embase databases up to May 16, 2013 to identify eligible studies on the association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk. Finally, a total of seven case-control studies including 3,971 cases of cutaneous melanoma and 5,873 controls were included in the meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with STATA version 11.0. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were used to assess the strength of the association. Overall, there was no association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk under all five genetic models (Gln vs. Lys: OR = 1.11, 95 % CI = 0.98-1.26, P = 0.10; GlnGln vs. LysLys: OR = 1.26, 95 % CI = 0.98-1.61, P = 0.07; LysGln vs. LysLys: OR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.88-1.22, P = 0.64; GlnGln/LysGln vs. LysLys: OR = 1.10, 95 % CI = 0.92-1.31, P = 0.29; GlnGln vs. LysLys/LysGln: OR = 1.19, 95 % CI = 0.99-1.43, P = 0.06). Subgroup analysis in Caucasians showed that there was an obvious association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk in Caucasians (GlnGln vs. LysLys/LysGln: OR = 1.12, 95 % CI = 1.00-1.25, P = 0.05). Sensitivity analysis by omitting one study in turns showed that the significance of the pooled ORs was not stable. In addition, there was some evidence of publication bias in the meta-analysis, and meta-analyses of the studies with large sample size did not find the obvious association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk in Caucasians. Therefore, there is little evidence for the association between XPC Lys939Gln polymorphism and cutaneous melanoma risk. |
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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 27% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
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 29 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,919
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,050
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,381
of 306,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#37
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 306,434 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.