ReviewCureus2026
Comparing the Histopathologic Patterns and Survival Outcomes of Mucinous vs Non-mucinous Colorectal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several studies have been conducted to explore the histopathological features and survival outcomes between colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma (MAC) and adenocarcinoma (AC), with divergent outcomes being realized. Therefore, the objective of this study is to systematically compare mucinous and non-mucinous colorectal AC based on histopathologic features and survival outcomes (overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)) and determine whether the mucinous subtype confers a distinct prognostic disadvantage. To attain this objective, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching various online databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane for studies published between 2015 and November 2025. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and all the studies were rated as moderate to high quality. This was followed by the calculation of pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs), as well as the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models to evaluate the histopathological patterns and survival outcomes between MAC and AC. A total of 12 studies involving 346,372 patients satisfied the study inclusion criteria, leading to their inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis disclosed that MAC was linked to a statistically significant 44% increment in mortality risk in comparison to non-MAC patients (pooled HR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.06-1.96, p = 0.020). Further, the subgroup analyses disclosed that the adverse prognostic effect of MAC was increasingly pronounced in colon cancer (HR = 1.65), as well as in the advanced-stage (stage IV) disease (HR = 1.89). No significant bias was disclosed by the assessment of publication bias using the funnel plot symmetry and Egger's test. In conclusion, the meta-analysis has confirmed that MAC is a significant negative prognostic factor in colorectal cancers and is linked to poor OS. Though the adverse effects are consistent across different populations, they are predominantly strong in colon cancer and advanced-stage disease 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.