SynthesisMedicine2020
Prognostic significance of red blood cell distribution width in gastrointestinal cancers: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term risk of gynecologic malignancies in postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding and benign endometrial lesions: a cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Relationship between red cell distribution width-to-albumin ratio and major adverse cardiovascular events among individuals with acute myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- The Role of Red Cell Distribution Width as a Prognostic Marker in Chronic Liver Disease: A Literature Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Prognostic Value of Red Blood Cell Distribution Width (RDW) in the Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Curative Resection.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2022Article
- Red Cell Distribution Width and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- Low Hemoglobin-to-Red Cell Distribution Width Ratio Is Associated with Disease Progression and Poor Prognosis in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.Biomedicines · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany publications showed red blood cell distribution width (RDW) might associate with the prognosis of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, however, the agreement has not been reached because of controversial results. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the prognostic value of RDW in GI cancers.
methodsFour common databases were comprehensively searched to look for relevant studies. The meta-analyses for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival were performed using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and the meta-analyses for clinical parameters were conducted using odd ratio and 95% CI.
resultsA total of 13 studies involving with 3,509 patients with GI cancers were included into this study. The results showed, compared to patients with low RDW, patients with high RDW tended to have shorter OS (HR = 1.75, 95%CI = 1.57-1.94, P < .01) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.67, 95%CI = 1.39-2.00, P < .01). High RDW was associated with larger tumor size (P < .01), worse differentiation (P = .02), deeper invasion (P < .01), earlier lymph node metastasis (P < .01), more advanced clinical stage (P < .01) and higher carcinoembryonic antigen level (P < .01) when compared to low RDW.
conclusionHigh RDW was significantly associated with worse prognosis of GI cancers, which could be regarded as a prognostic biomarker for GI cancers. More prospective studies with large sample size and long follow-up period should be carried out to determine the prognostic significance of RDW in GI cancers in future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.