↓ Skip to main content

Prognostic significance of Epstein-Barr virus infection in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Prognostic significance of Epstein-Barr virus infection in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Cancer, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1813-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xuechao Liu, Jianjun Liu, Haibo Qiu, Pengfei Kong, Shangxiang Chen, Wei Li, Youqing Zhan, Yuanfang Li, Yingbo Chen, Zhiwei Zhou, Dazhi Xu, Xiaowei Sun

Abstract

The prognostic significance of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection in gastric cancer (GC) remains unclear. Recently, a number of studies have investigated the association between EBV infection and the prognosis of GC with controversial results. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to assess its prognostic significance. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies up to October 1, 2014. We investigated the association between EBV infection with survival in patients with GC. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and its 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate risk. A final analysis of 8,336 patients with GC from 24 studies was performed. Our analysis results indicated that the pooled HR was 0.67 (95 % CI: 0.55-0.79; Z = 11.18, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses stratified by region revealed that the protective role of EBV infection only remained in the Asian population (HR: 0.62, 95 % CI: 0.48-0.75; P < 0.001). When stratified by study quality and statistical methodology, the protective role could also be identified in high quality studies (HR: 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.55-0.79) and in univariate analysis studies (HR: 0.62, 95 % CI: 0.50-0.74). There was no evidence of significant heterogeneity and publication bias. The presence of EBV has a favorable impact on GC patient's survival, especially in an Asian population. Future updated studies, especially large-scale randomized controlled studies stratified by region, are warranted as validation studies.

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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 24%
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 26 October 2015.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#6,689
of 8,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,258
of 286,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#176
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 8,483 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. 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 286,436 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 221 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.