SynthesisCarcinogenesis2025
Copper in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Carcinogenesis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simulation-guided design of peptide-metal coordination interfaces for next-generation metallo-immunotherapy.Nano convergence · 2026Review
- Clinical relevance of tissue copper, selenium, and cadmium alterations in colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Copper homeostasis and cuproptosis in tumor biology: mechanistic insights and clinical perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Exploratory comparative profiling of 22 macro- and trace elements reveals disrupted elemental homeostasis in colorectal cancer tissues.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several clinical studies have evaluated the relationship between copper on colorectal cancer (CRC), but the results are contradictory. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate copper measured in two biological matrices (serum/plasma/blood and tissue) and dietary intake in CRC patients compared to healthy controls. We conducted a comprehensive and systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. We included studies that reported copper levels in serum/plasma/blood, tissue, or from the diet, with an observational study design (cohort and case-control studies). Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and potential causes of heterogeneity were evaluated. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using random-effect models. Overall pooled odds ratio and 95% CI for the risk of CRC were calculated. Twenty-six studies (23 case-control and 3 cohort studies) with a total of 227 354 participants were included. Most of the studies presented low (50%) or moderate quality (42.3%). No differences in serum/plasma/blood copper levels (SMD = 0.23; 95% CI: -0.23, 0.70; I2 = 97.3%, 19 studies), tissue copper levels (SMD = -1.69; 95% CI: -3.41, 0.03; I2 = 85.6%, 2 studies), or copper/zinc ratio (SMD = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.84; I2 = 95.3%, 6 studies) were found between CRC patients and healthy controls. Regarding dietary copper, CRC patients had a lower intake (SMD = -0.27; 95% CI: -0.51, -0.03; I2 = 0.0%, 2 studies). No differences were found in copper levels between CRC patients and healthy controls. However, evidence shows mostly low or moderate quality, and results were heterogeneous. More prospective studies with an adequate methodological approach are needed.
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.