ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Comparative analysis of sporadic, IBD-associated, early-onset and late-onset colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 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.
- Gut Microbiota in Colorectal Cancer: Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis, Biomarkers, and Therapeutic Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a multifaceted disease with variations in aetiology, clinical presentation and prognostic factors. Objectives: This study explores the features and outcomes of sporadic (S-CRC), inflammatory bowel disease-associated CRC (IBD-CRC), early-onset CRC (EO-CRC) and late-onset CRC (LO-CRC). Design: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Statement, comparing S-CRC versus IBD-CRC and EO-CRC versus LO-CRC. Data sources and methods: The literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase databases. The primary endpoint was the overall 5-year survival rate of CRC. Secondary aims included the features of CRC at diagnosis. Results: Fifty studies and 6,148,851 patients with CRC were included in the analysis. Comparing S-CRC and IBD-CRC, the overall survival was higher in S-CRC (61.88 (range 41.3-78.7) vs 55.54 (51.9-80.9) months). IBD-CRC showed a minor mean age of diagnosis (63.5 (45-78) vs 69.1 ((40-78) years), a minor risk of stage IV (odd ratio (OR) 1.091; 95%CI 1.031-1.155, Conclusion: IBD-CRC was associated with a younger mean age at diagnosis, higher risk of mucinous cancers, emergency presentation, and synchronous neoplasia compared to S-CRC. EO-CRC had a higher risk of being diagnosed at stage IV and of mucinous tumours versus LO-CRC. IBD-CRC seemed to have an overall shorter survival rate and a higher prevalence of mucinous cancers, suggesting different pathways of progression and more aggressive features. Trial registration: Prospero Registration ID1021182.
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.