SynthesisBMC geriatrics2025
Sarcopenia defined by serum creatinine and cystatin C predicts poor survival outcomes in patients with cancers.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe prognostic significance of sarcopenia estimated by serum creatinine and cystatin C in cancer patients remained inconsistent. The purpose of the meta-analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the association between creatinine/cystatin C ratio(CCR) or sarcopenia index(SI) and survival outcomes in cancer patients with sarcopenia.
methodsA comprehensive search of relevant studies was implemented by scrutinizing Pubmed, Web of science and Embase databases until June 30, 2024. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the survival outcomes.
results18 studies from 17 articles involving 9908 patients were enrolled in the study. The meta-analysis indicated that low CCR was significantly associated with poor overall survival (OS) (HR:1.71,95% CI: 1.42-2.06), progression free survival (PFS)((HR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.33-2.34), recurrence free survival (RFS)(HR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.52-4.05). Low SI was correlated with poor OS (HR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.21-2.13). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that low CCR was an adverse prognostic marker not affected by cancer type, treatment method, country and analysis type.
conclusionsSarcopenia assessed by CCR or SI predicted unfavorable prognosis in cancer patients. CCR or SI can be used as an effective and convenient indicator of sarcopenia in cancer patients.
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.