SynthesisScientific reports2025
The presence and relative abundance of salivary Fusobacterium nucleatum are not associated with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantification of EctopicInternational journal of molecular sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Early detection through non-invasive methods is critical for improving patient outcomes. This study investigates the association between the presence and relative abundance of Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) in saliva and CRC, evaluating its potential as a non-invasive biomarker. A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases on November 25, 2023. Studies analyzing Fn in salivary samples from adults with CRC, colorectal polyps (CRP), or healthy individuals were included. Statistical analyses were performed using random-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Of the 14,200 studies identified, twelve were included in our systematic review. Of these, eight were analyzed by meta-analysis. The results indicated no significant difference in the presence (OR 1.40; 95% CI [0.77; 2.54]; I
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.