Prognostic value of IGF-1R expression in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: comments on a meta-analysis by Liang et al
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recently, we read with deep interest a meta-analysis by Liang et al entitled "Prognostic value of IGF-1R expression in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: a meta-analysis" 1 published in OncoTargets and Therapy. In this article, the investigators systematically reviewed the trials on the effects of IGF-1R expression in various bone and soft tissue sarcomas (BSTSs) and performed a meta-analysis. They reached an important conclusion that elevated IGF-1R expression was associated with poor overall survival in BSTS patients. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed that IGF-1R level was negatively correlated with prognosis in osteosarcoma but not significantly associated with Ewing's sarcoma. Nevertheless, before their results can be accepted, some worthwhile issues need to be addressed first. 1. To begin with, there are quite a few deficiencies in the literature research. First, only two electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) were systematically searched to identify eligible studies. In our opinion, more electronic databases, including Embase, Ovid, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and several Chinese databases (CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure), CBM (Chinese Biology Medicine) disc, VIP, Wanfang database, etc) should be thoroughly searched to achieve a comprehensive literature retrieval. Second, the search strategy report of database and manual search protocol were not clearly described, 1 which may be regarded as a flaw in the metaanalysis. Third, the publication language of selected literature was strangely limited to English, which could inevitably lead to potential language bias. 1 2. With respect to quality assessment section, the investigators clarified that "A study was considered high-quality if it achieved a score of 7 or more", while a low-quality study conducted by van Gaal et al 2 with a Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale score of 6 was not excluded by the investigators 1 (Table We would like to know the possible reason for the inclusion of this study. In addition, the authors claimed that they performed this meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standardized guidelines. 3 However, sensitivity analysis, a procedure which is strongly recommended in PRISMA guidelines, was not performed in this review. We take the attitude that any effort to increase the credibility of meta-analysis should be attached importance
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle