ReviewPorto biomedical journal
Revisiting the clinical usefulness of C-reactive protein in the set of cancer cachexia.
Review in Porto biomedical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene Ontology (GO)-Driven Inference of Candidate Proteomic Markers Associated with Muscle Atrophy Conditions.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Cancer- and cardiac-induced cachexia: same fate through different inflammatory mediators?Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2022Pooled it
- Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers and Cancer-Associated Cachexia: A Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- The effects of tissue inflammation on cancer cachexia.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease · 2026Review
- Article
- C-reactive protein: structure, function, regulation, and role in clinical diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Review
- Predictors of response to anamorelin in gastrointestinal cancer patients with cachexia: a retrospective study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- The impact of inflammation and acute phase activation in cancer cachexia.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Inflammation as a Therapeutic Target in Cancer Cachexia.Cancers · 2022Review
- Review
- Malnutrition Is Highly Prevalent in Patients With Chronic Pancreatitis and Characterized by Loss of Skeletal Muscle Mass but Absence of Impaired Physical Function.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Biomarkers for Cancer Cachexia: A Mini Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer cachexia is a highly complex multifactorial disorder that is often misdiagnosed, leading to suboptimal health outcomes. Indeed, cachexia is a concern in cancer, typifying lower response to treatment and risk of death. Thus, efforts have been made to better understand the molecular basis of this syndrome, envisioning to improve its diagnosis and management. C-reactive protein (CRP) has been reported to be consistently increased in the circulation of patients with body wasting associated to chronic diseases. However, the role of CRP in the pathogenesis of cachexia remains elusive. Several hypotheses have been advanced but most of experimental findings support an indirect effect on the activation of muscle proteolysis, mostly through its interplay with pro-inflammatory cytokines. Herein, we overview the contribution of CRP to body wasting and its putative biomarker value for the diagnosis and follow-up of the therapeutic management of cachexia.
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.