2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.01.040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii infection in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
31
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
2
31
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Although some reports indicate a possible association between T . gondii infection and malignancies [ 9 , 15 , 16 ], the infection status of T . gondii in patients with CRC remains unclear in eastern China.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although some reports indicate a possible association between T . gondii infection and malignancies [ 9 , 15 , 16 ], the infection status of T . gondii in patients with CRC remains unclear in eastern China.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rate of T . gondii infection increases with age [ 24 , 25 ] and is affected by sex [ 16 ]. These associations can be explained because the possibility of infection increases with age and depends on type of occupation, often sex-related, with an opportunistic pathogen such as T .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We pooled each study estimate using a random-effects model to obtain an overall summary estimate of each Echinococcus isolate genotype (G1, G2, G3, and G6), as well as the accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity between the results was assessed based on the Q test and the I 2 indicator [37-39]. In addition, the Egger test was used to investigate the presence of publication bias.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the present review, an I 2 value of >75% was considered to be indicative of significant heterogeneity, warranting the implementation of an analysis with a random-effects model as opposed to the fixed-effects model to adjust for the observed variability. This heterogeneity was further explored through subgroup analyses (Rothstein et al, 2005;Hosseininejad et al, 2018;Saberi et al, 2018;Anvari et al, 2019Anvari et al, , 2020Chegeni et al, 2019). The subgroup analyses were performed based on the year, continent, country, gender, infected organ, fertility rate and applied diagnostic test.…”
Section: Meta-analysismentioning
confidence: 99%