Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34773194›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2022

C-Reactive Protein and C-Reactive Protein-Based Scores to Predict Survival in Esophageal and Junctional Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cliona M Lorton, Larissa Higgins, Niamh O'Donoghue, Claire Donohoe, Jim O'Connell, David Mockler, John V Reynolds, Declan Walsh, Joanne Lysaght

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. C-reactive protein and digestive pathologies: A narrative review for daily clinical use.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Cliona M LortonAcademic Department of Palliative Medicine, Our Lady's Hospice & Care Services, Dublin, Ireland. lortonc@tcd.ie.
Larissa HigginsHealth Products Regulatory Authority, Dublin, Ireland.
Niamh O'DonoghueDepartment of Oncology, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Claire DonohoeSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Jim O'ConnellSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
David MocklerJohn Stearne Medical Library, Trinity Centre for the Health Sciences, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
John V ReynoldsSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Declan WalshDepartment of Supportive Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Joanne LysaghtSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Trinity College Dublin · IESt. James's Hospital · IEHealth and Safety Authority · IELevine Cancer Institute · USOur Lady's Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEsophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has a poor prognosis; predictive markers of prognosis would facilitate advances in personalized therapy. C-reactive protein (CRP) and CRP-based scores are increasingly recommended across oncology; however, their role and value in EAC is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined CRP cut-point and scores and how they may best be applied in predicting survival in EAC.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus and CINAHL databases, from inception to 1st October 2020. Studies reporting data from adults with EAC including adenocarcinoma of the gastro-esophageal junction (AEG), pre-treatment CRP or CRP-based score and Hazard Ratio (HR) for survival were included. QUIPS tool assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was undertaken.

resultsA total of 819 records were screened. Eight papers were included, with data for 1475 people. CRP cut-points ranged from 2.8 to 10 mg/L. The Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and modified GPS were the most commonly reported scores. On meta-analysis, elevated preoperative GPS/mGPS was significantly associated with worse overall survival (hazards ratio [HR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-2.62, p = 0.002); results were similar in subgroup analyses of multimodal treatment, M0 disease, and R0 resection.

conclusionsThis is the first review to evaluate comprehensively the evidence for CRP and CRP-based scores in EAC. Meta-analysis demonstrated that elevated preoperative GPS or mGPS was significantly associated with reduced overall survival in EAC, including AEG. There is insufficient evidence to support use of CRP alone. Future studies should examine GPS/mGPS in EAC prospectively, alone and combined with other prognostic markers.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaEsophageal NeoplasmsAdultC-Reactive ProteinHumansPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsC-Reactive Protein

Identifiers

PMID34773194
OpenAlexW3213115082

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.