4.2 Review

Circulating Resistin Levels and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 2016, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2016/7367485

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Funds [81472033, 30901308]
  2. National Science Foundation of Hubei Province [2013CFB233, 2013CFB235]
  3. Scientific and Technological Project of Wuhan City [2014060101010045]
  4. Hubei Province Health and Family Planning Scientific Research Project [WJ2015Q021]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. Published data on resistin levels in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) were conflicting and heterogeneous. We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies to examine the association of circulating resistin levels with carcinogenesis of the CRC. Methods. Potentially eligible studies published up to November 2015 were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded database, CNKI, and WanFang database. The pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated by fixed-or random-effect model were used to estimate the effects. Results. A total of 11 studies involving 965 patients were admitted in our meta-analysis. The pooled effects indicated that resistin levels were higher in CRC patients compared to healthy controls (WMD: 1.47 ng/mL; 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.16), with significant heterogeneity across the studies (I-2 = 72%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses revealed that study quality, design, sample type, and resistin assays may account for this heterogeneity. No publication bias was observed. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis suggests that increased circulating resistin levels are associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer. Given the limited number of available studies and significant heterogeneity, larger well-designed randomized studies are warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available