The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hepatitis C Virus and Risk of Lymphoma and Other Lymphoid Neoplasms: A Meta-analysis of Epidemiologic Studies
Open accessAbstract
The present meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the strength and the consistency of the association between hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and non–Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and other lymphoid neoplasms. Only studies with ≥100 cases which were also adjusted for sex and age were included. Fifteen case-control studies and three prospective studies contributed to present analysis, nine of which had not been included in previous meta-analyses. We calculated the pooled relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), as a weighted average of the estimated RRs by random-effect models. The pooled RR of all NHL among HCV-positive individuals was 2.5 (95% CI, 2.1-3.0), but substantial heterogeneity was found between studies and by study design. Pooled RRs were 2.5 (95% CI, 2.1-3.1) in case-control studies and 2.0 (95% CI, 1.8-2.2) in cohort ones. The strongest source of heterogeneity seemed to be the prevalence of HCV among NHL-free study subjects (RR for NHL among HCV-positive individuals 3.0 and 1.9, respectively, for ≥5% and <5% HCV prevalence). RRs were consistently increased for all major B-NHL subtypes, T-NHL, and primary sites of NHL presentation. Thus, previous suggestions that the RRs for HCV differed by NHL subtype were not confirmed in our meta-analysis. Associations weaker than with NHL were found between HCV infection and Hodgkin's lymphoma (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1) and multiple myeloma (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.7-3.6), but they were based on much fewer studies than NHL. The etiologic fraction of NHL attributable to HCV varies greatly by country, and may be upward of 10% in areas where HCV prevalence is high. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(11):2078–85)
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
A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis
Macaskill, P., Walter, S. D., & Irwig, L. (2001) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.698 · Cited by 1,286
Estimating the population attributable risk for multiple risk factors using case-control data.
BRUZZI, P., GREEN, S. B., BYAR, D. P., BRINTON, L. A., & SCHAIRER, C. (1985) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114174 · Cited by 1,214
Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events
Bradburn, M. J., Deeks, J. J., Berlin, J. A., & Russell Localio, A. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2528 · Cited by 938
Metadata
- Authors
- Dal Maso, L., & Franceschi, S.
- Venue
- Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
- Published
- 2006-11-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2078-2085
- ISSN
- 1055-9965 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2081540010
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 0.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.