The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pooled Analysis and Meta-analysis of Glutathione S-Transferase M1 and Bladder Cancer: A HuGE Review
Abstract
Smoking is a known risk factor for bladder cancer. The product of the GSTM1 gene, glutathione S-transferase M1 (GSTM1), is involved in the detoxification of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in tobacco smoke; a homozygous deletion of this gene in approximately 50% of Caucasians and Asians results in a lack of GSTM1 enzyme activity. Most studies examining the relation between bladder cancer and GSTM1 have reported an increased risk associated with a lack of GSTM1 activity. The authors performed meta- and pooled analyses of published and unpublished, case-control, genotype-based studies that examined this association (17 studies, 2,149 cases, 3,646 controls) and excluded studies conducted in populations with a high prevalence of exposure to known bladder cancer risk factors other than tobacco smoke. Using random effects models in the meta-analysis, the authors obtained a summary odds ratio of 1.44 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23, 1.68) for GSTM1 null status with all studies included. Results from studies with at least 100 cases and 100 controls produced a summary odds ratio of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.26, 1.60). Pooled analyses using original data sets from 10 studies (1,496 cases and 1,444 controls) and adjusting for age, sex, and race produced similar results. There was no evidence of multiplicative interaction between the GSTM1 null genotype and ever smoking in relation to bladder cancer, although there was a suggestion of additive interaction (additive interaction = 0.45, 95% CI: -0.03, 0.93). These results indicate that, among populations studied to date, GSTM1 null status is associated with a modest increase in the risk of bladder cancer.
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
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
meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61 · Cited by 1,374
Cited by
Wacholder, S., Chanock, S., Garcia-Closas, M., El ghormli, L., & Rothman, N. (2004) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djh075 · Cited by 1,754
Genetic ablation of Nrf2 enhances susceptibility to cigarette smoke–induced emphysema in mice
Rangasamy, T., Cho, C. Y., Thimmulappa, R. K., Zhen, L., Srisuma, S. S., Kensler, T. W., Yamamoto, M., Petrache, I., Tuder, R. M., & Biswal, S. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci200421146 · Cited by 991
What makes a good genetic association study?
Hattersley, A. T., & McCarthy, M. I. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67531-9 · Cited by 470
Association studies for finding cancer-susceptibility genetic variants
Pharoah, P. D. P., Dunning, A. M., Ponder, B. A. J., & Easton, D. F. (2004) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc1476 · Cited by 462
Polymorphisms in DNA repair and metabolic genes in bladder cancer
Sanyal, S. (2003) · Carcinogenesis · doi:10.1093/carcin/bgh058 · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Engel, L. S.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-07-15
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 95-109
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2145193688
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 0.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Pooled Analysis and Meta-analysis of Glutathione S-Transferase M1 and Bladder Cancer: A HuGE Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/aje/kwf018
- The paper
- Engel, L. S. (2002). Pooled Analysis and Meta-analysis of Glutathione S-Transferase M1 and Bladder Cancer: A HuGE Review. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwf018
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.