ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Non-coding RNAs and gastrointestinal cancers prognosis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- XPO1: From basic research to clinical treatment (Review).Oncology reports · 2026Review
- Retrospective study on endoscopic treatment of recurrent esophageal cancer patients after radiotherapy.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Provide an overview and a systematic evaluation of the evidence quality on the association between non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) and prognosis value for gastrointestinal cancers (GICs). Methods: We searched the literature from three electronic databases: Pubmed, Embase, and Web of science, then carefully screened and extracted the primary information and results from the included articles. We use A measurable systematic review and meta-analysis evaluation tool (AMSTAR2) to evaluate the quality of methodology and then use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment 2, Development and Evaluation guideline (GRADE) make sure the reliability of the meta-analysis. Results: Overall, 182 meta-analyses from 58 studies were included in this study. Most of these studies are of low or very low quality. Using the scoring tool, we found that only two meta-analyses were rated as high reliability, and 17 meta-analyses were rated as medium reliability. Conclusions: Although ncRNA has good prognostic value in some studies, only a tiny amount of evidence is highly credible at present. More research is needed in the future. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022382296.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.