The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
P53 abnormalities and outcomes in colorectal cancer: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
We performed a systematic review of studies that investigated the effect of abnormalities of the tumour suppressor gene p53 upon prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. The methods used to assess p53 status were immunohistochemistry (IHC), indicating abnormal accumulation of p53, and sequence analysis, indicating presence of p53 mutations (mut). We identified 168 reports, with 241 comparisons of relevant end points and survival data on 18 766 patients. We found evidence of both publication bias and heterogeneity of results. Our analysis was hampered by variability in both the assessment of p53 status and the reporting of results. We used a trim and fill method to correct for publication bias and minimised heterogeneity by using well-defined clinical subgroups for the assessment of outcomes. Overall, patients with abnormal p53 were at increased risk of death: relative risk (RR) with IHC 1.32 (95% confidence interval (c.i.) 1.23-1.42) and with mutation analysis 1.31 (95% c.i. 1.19-1.45). The adverse impact of abnormal p53 was greater in patients with lower baseline risk of dying: good prognosis RR (mut) 1.63 (95% c.i. 1.40-1.90) and poor prognosis RR (mut) 1.04 (95% c.i. 0.91-1.19). We found no effect of abnormal p53 on outcome in patients treated with chemotherapy. Abnormal p53 was associated with failure of response to radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer: RR (mut) 1.49 (95% c.i. 1.25-1.77).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
p53 Mutations in Human Cancers
Hollstein, M., Sidransky, D., Vogelstein, B., & Harris, C. C. (1991) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1905840 · Cited by 8,018
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Bond, G. L., Hu, W., Bond, E. E., Robins, H., Lutzker, S. G., Arva, N. C., Bargonetti, J., Bartel, F., Taubert, H., Wuerl, P., et al. (2004) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.11.022 · Cited by 1,265
Egger, M., Jüni, P., Bartlett, C., Holenstein, F., & Sterne, J. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7010 · Cited by 1,181
Disruption of p53 in human cancer cells alters the responses to therapeutic agents.
Bunz, F., Hwang, P. M., Torrance, C., Waldman, T., Zhang, Y., Dillehay, L., Williams, J., Lengauer, C., Kinzler, K. W., & Vogelstein, B. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci6863 · Cited by 1,044
Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables
Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7306.224 · Cited by 756
Cited by
QuPath: Open source software for digital pathology image analysis
Bankhead, P., Loughrey, M. B., Fernández, J. A., Dombrowski, Y., McArt, D. G., Dunne, P. D., McQuaid, S., Gray, R. T., Murray, L. J., Coleman, H. G., et al. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17204-5 · Cited by 8,908
Modeling the Therapeutic Efficacy of p53 Restoration in Tumors
Martins, C. P., Brown-Swigart, L., & Evan, G. I. (2006) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.007 · Cited by 600
The molecular characteristics of colorectal cancer: Implications for diagnosis and therapy (Review)
Nguyen, H., & Duong, H. (2018) · Oncology Letters · doi:10.3892/ol.2018.8679 · Cited by 244
Xie, H., Ma, K., Zhang, K., Zhou, J., Li, L., Yang, W., Gong, Y., Cai, L., & Gong, K. (2021) · Cell Death & Disease · doi:10.1038/s41419-020-03229-8 · Cited by 155
Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in coloproctology: interpretation and potential pitfalls
Wille‐Jørgensen, P., & Renehan, A. G. (2008) · Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01421.x · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Munro, A. J., Lain, S., & Lane, D. P.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2005-01-25
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 434-444
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W1970221755
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: P53 abnormalities and outcomes in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602358
- The paper
- Munro, A. J., Lain, S., & Lane, D. P. (2005). P53 abnormalities and outcomes in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602358
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
