SynthesisCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Circulating Clusterin Levels and Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma: an umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Early monitoring values of oncogenic signalling molecules for hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Xenoestrogen and Its Interaction with Human Genes and Cellular Proteins: An In-Silico Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Review
- Clusterin Is a Prognostic Biomarker of Lower-Grade Gliomas and Is Associated with Immune Cell Infiltration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- The Ins and Outs of Clusterin: Its Role in Cancer, Eye Diseases and Wound Healing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe previous reports on clusterin (CLU) levels in various types of cancer have been controversial and heterogeneous. The present meta-analysis has aimed to evaluate the association between soluble CLU levels and the risk of different human cancers based on observational studies.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to determine the relevant eligible studies in English language from health-related electronic databases up to January 2021. Random effects models were used to calculate the summary standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to identify the correlation between CLU levels and cancer risk. The meta-regression, sensitivity, Galbraith, and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the source of between-study heterogeneity. Furthermore, the funnel plot and Egger's linear regression tests were carried out to evaluate the risk of publication bias.
resultsAccording to 16 eligible articles, 3331 patients and 839 healthy controls were included in our meta-analysis. Overall, the CLU levels were significantly higher in various cancer cases compared to the healthy groups (SMD = 1.50, 95% CI = 0.47-2.53). Moreover, subgroup analysis based on types of cancer showed a significant correlation between CLU levels and the risk of digestive system cancers (SMD = 1.54, 95% CI = 0.91-2.18,
conclusionThe present meta-analysis indicates a significant association of CLU levels with the risk of digestive system cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer. Therefore, CLU can be monitored as a novel molecular biomarker for the prognosis and diagnosis of various types of cancers particularly in the digestive system.
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.