Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36263092›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022

Is red blood cell distribution width a prognostic factor for colorectal cancer? A meta-analysis.

Ze-Lin Wen, Xiong Zhou, Da-Chun Xiao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Red cell distribution width as a prognostic predictor for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

3 authors.

Ze-Lin WenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chongqing Medical University, Yongchuan Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Xiong ZhouDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chongqing Medical University, Yongchuan Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Da-Chun XiaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chongqing Medical University, Yongchuan Hospital, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: RDW might be an easy and cost-effective pre-operative prognostic factor for cancer patients. The aim of the current study was to analyze whether red blood cell distribution width (RDW) was a prognostic factor for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who underwent radical surgery. Methods: We conducted the searching strategy in three databases including the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library from the inception to May 07, 2022, to find eligible studies. In this meta-analysis, we focused on the prognosis. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Results: A total of seven studies involving 7,541 patients were included in this meta-analysis. After pooling up the HRs, red blood cell distribution width-coefficient of variation (RDW-CV) was not an independent prognostic factor of OS (HR = 1.48, Conclusion: RDW-SD was an independent prognostic factor of OS and DFS, and RDW-CV was an independent prognostic factor of DFS.

Indexed as

colorectal cancermeta-analysisred blood cell distribution widthsurgerysurvival

Identifiers

PMID36263092
PMCPMC9574073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.