Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27343117›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2016

Body mass index and colorectal cancer prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

B Doleman, K T Mills, S Lim, M D Zelhart, G Gagliardi

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Circulating CD16+ CD56+ Natural Killer Cells in Colorectal Cancer and Their Correlation with Survival.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Prognostic significance of anthropometric measurements in gastric cancer: a multicenter cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

B DolemanDepartment of Surgery and Anaesthesia, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
K T MillsDepartment of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
S LimDepartment of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
M D ZelhartDepartment of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
G GagliardiDepartment of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA. gagliarg@yahoo.com.

Funding

Tulane COBRE in Cardiometabolic Diseases Clinical Research CoreP20GM109036 · NIGMS · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI Ning Liu · 2016 to 2026
$25.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. However, it is unclear what influence body mass index (BMI) has on colorectal cancer prognosis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to examine the association of BMI with colorectal cancer outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to February 2015 and references of identified articles. We selected observational studies that reported all-cause mortality, colorectal cancer-specific mortality, recurrence and disease-free survival according to BMI category. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to combine estimates. We included 18 observational studies. Obese patients had an increased risk of all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) 1.14; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.21], cancer-specific mortality (RR 1.14; 95 % CI 1.05-1.24), recurrence (RR 1.07; 95 % CI 1.02-1.13) and worse disease-free survival (RR 1.07; 95 % CI 1.01-1.13). Underweight patients also had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.43; 95 % CI 1.26-1.62), cancer-specific mortality (RR 1.50; 95 % CI 1.20-1.87), recurrence (RR 1.13; 95 % CI 1.05-1.21) and worse disease-free survival (RR 1.27; 95 % CI 1.13-1.43). Overweight patients had no increased risk for any of the outcomes studied. Both obese and underweight patients with colorectal cancer have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, disease recurrence and worse disease-free survival compared to normal weight patients.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexCause of DeathColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalObesityObservational Studies as TopicSurvival RateThinnessBMIBody weightColorectal cancerMortalityObesitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27343117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.