4.6 Article

Epstein-Barr virus infection and oral squamous cell carcinoma risk: A meta-analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186860

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81360404]
  2. Guangxi Natural Science Foundation [0832013]
  3. Innovation Project of Guangxi Graduate Education [201010598RY10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The evidence for association between Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection and risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is inconsistent in the literature. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to clarify this association. Methods A literature search was conducted in electronic databases for English-and Chinese-language publications until March 31, 2017 to include eligible case-control studies. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated to determine the association between EBV infection and OSCC risk using a fixed- or random-effects model based on heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot analysis. Results A total of 13 case-control studies with 686 OSCC patients and 433 controls were included based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled OR with 95% CI between EBV infection and OSCC risk was 5.03 (1.80 - 14.01) with significant heterogeneity observed (I-2 = 87%). The subgroup analysis indicates that the year of publication, study location, economic level, sample size, tissue type, detection method and marker, control type, and language might explain potential sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was not observed, and sensitivity analysis showed stable results. Conclusions The results of the current meta-analysis suggest that EBV infection is statistically associated with increased risk of OSCC. However, additional high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further confirm the relationship between EBV and OSCC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available