Evidence Hub

Polymorphisms in non-coding RNAs and risk of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Maryam Alidoust, Leila Hamzehzadeh, M. Rivandi, A. Pasdar

Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, 2018

23,581 participants · 29 citations

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has been regarded as a common cancer due to its prevailing incidence in both males and females. Recently, non-coding RNAs used as biomarkers for screening, diagnosis and prognosis of different cancers have been under the focus of attention. As a result of this, the aim of this study was to systematically review articles that investigated the SNPs in genes related to microRNAs and long non-coding RNAs to assess the genetic susceptibility of colorectal cancer risk. The outcome is presented as the results of a meta-analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify relevant studies published up to 20/5/2017. These included eligible studies consisting of 23,581 patients and 22,697 controls. The conferred risk was estimated and presented using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) was assessed by the goodness-of-fit chi-square test in all studies. The power of each study was also calculated based on the available results. Out of 27 different microRNAs which had published results, although most of the studies were under powered, miR-146a and miR-196a were amongst the most studied microRNAs. For five miRNAs (miR-196a, miR-146a, miR-27a, miR-499 and miR-149) which we performed a meta-analysis, miR-27a and miR-149 gene polymorphisms were associated with susceptibility to CRC. Other miRNAs did not show any effect on the CRC risk. Overall, significant association between miR-149…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 23,581 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free