Talk:Rs10895068

[PMID 24197980] "Progesterone receptor PROGINS and +331G/A polymorphisms confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis based on 17 studies." is kinda annoying. Despite the title it stands clearly in the abstract, bizarrely repeated word to word twice in fact, "No significant association, however, between the +331G/A polymorphism and ovarian cancer susceptibility was observed in the overall analyses and subgroup analyses based on ethnicity and histological type."

But then the abstract says "Caucasians, never-oral contraceptive (OC) users, and serous tumor patients, there were statistically significant ORs for ovarian cancer risk associated with the mutated PROGINS allele", yet when they go to repeat it few lines below, it becomes "PROGINS allele occurs more frequently in ovarian cancer patients and especially in non-OC users and serous cancer patients". So which is is, never-OC users or non-OC users, and what happened to caucasians?

I'd accuse of the article of shoddy writing at the very least, but then it sports "The University of York Centre for Reviews and Discrimination DARE scientific quality criteria" certification, so we're supposed to believe that passes for scientific quality. Fittingly, the link to the "DARE scientific quality criteria" returns 404 page not found.

In any case, yes the study title doesn't seem to match the abstract, and even the abstract isn't self-consistent. I'd like to think they're just typographical for crunch to publish and not indicative of research quality, but in reality they make it hard to even determine what the actual findings were.