| Title |
Prognostic value of long noncoding RNA MALAT1 in various carcinomas: evidence from nine studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-015-3915-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuan Xue, Yan-Qing Teng, Jian-Dong Zhou, Yong-Jun Rui |
| Abstract |
RNA-sequencing technology is progressing day by day. Numerous researches have showed that long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) play oncogenic or tumor suppressor roles in tumor biological processes. To our knowledge, many studies have identified a lot of lncRNAs with aberrant expression in several types of cancers. Metastasis-associated lung adenocarcinoma transcript 1 (MALAT1), a newly discovered lncRNA, has been reported that is overexpressed in several types of cancers. But the clinical value of MALAT1 in cancers remains unclear. Therefore, in this present study, we aimed to investigate potential clinical application role of MALAT1 as a prognostic biomarker in malignant tumors. We performed a detailed search in PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Library until July 2015. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine studies with a total of 941 patients were selected to explore the relationship between high expression of MALAT1 and overall survival in cancers. The result showed that overexpression of MALAT1 could predict poor overall survival (OS) in cancer patients, with pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 1.90 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.68-2.16, P < 0.0001]. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis demonstrated that high expression of MALAT1 might be served as a novel prognostic biomarker in different types of cancers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 18% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 55% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,751,292
of 25,394,081 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,005
of 2,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,765
of 277,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#50
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,081 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,676 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 277,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.