↓ Skip to main content

The Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein-1 (LMP1) 30-bp deletion and XhoI-polymorphism in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein-1 (LMP1) 30-bp deletion and XhoI-polymorphism in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0037-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vivaldo G da Costa, Ariany C Marques-Silva, Marcos L Moreli

Abstract

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is considered to be closely associated with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), in which EBV-encoded latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1) was found to have an oncogenic role. However, the results published on the LMP1 polymorphism are inconsistent. In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the frequency of the associations and a more precise association between NPC and EBV LMP1 gene variants (30-bp deletion (del)/XhoI-loss). Eligible articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were identified in the following electronic databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, and SciELO. Consequently, the data of interest were extracted and plotted in a table to calculate the frequency and odds ratio (OR) of the outcomes of interest (30-bp del-LMP1/XhoI-loss) in patients with NPC. Study quality (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)), publication bias, and heterogeneity were assessed. Thirty-one observational studies were included with a total of 2,846 individuals (NPC, n = 1,855; control, n = 991). The risk of bias in relation to study quality evaluated by NOS was considered low. The pooled estimate of the frequency of 30-bp del-LMP1 and XhoI-loss in patients with NPC was 77% (95% confidence interval (CI): 72 to 82) and 82% (95% CI: 71 to 92), respectively. There was an association between 30-bp del-LMP1 and NPC susceptibility (OR = 2.86, 95% CI: 1.35 to 6.07, P = 0.00). Similarly, there was an association between XhoI-loss and NPC (OR = 8.5, 95% CI: 1.7 to 41, P = 0.00). However, when we analyze the co-existence of the 30-bp del-LMP1 and XhoI-loss in patients with NPC, there was no association (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.06 to 18.79, P = 0.002). Our results suggest an association between the 30-bp del-LMP1 and XhoI-loss with NPC susceptibility. However, our data should be interpreted with caution because the sample size was small, and there was heterogeneity between the studies. Thus, future studies are needed with adjusted estimates to simultaneously evaluate multiple factors involved in the development of NPC. PROSPERO CRD42014013496 .

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Master 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Mathematics 3 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 April 2015.
All research outputs
#17,753,591
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,706
of 1,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,643
of 264,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#39
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 264,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.