SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
Prognostic utility of the Charlson comorbidity index in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe prognosis of pancreatic cancer is extremely poor, and patients frequently present with multiple comorbidities. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and its age-adjusted version (CACI) are widely used to quantify the burden of comorbidity. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between CCI/CACI and survival outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer.
methodsWe systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for relevant literature up to May 2025. Observational studies primarily investigating the association between CCI/CACI and overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreatic cancer were included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of eligible studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was employed to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and regression analysis were also conducted.
resultsThis analysis incorporated 28 studies comprising 548,660 participants. Most of the studies were of high quality. The meta-analysis demonstrated that a higher CCI was associated with an inferior OS (pooled HR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09-1.47, P = 0.002). A similar association was observed for CACI (pooled HR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.17-1.67, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses confirmed that this association was generally consistent across different geographical regions, study designs, sample sizes, treatment modalities, and cut-off values of CCI. However, the assessment of heterogeneity revealed substantial heterogeneity in the analyses involving the CCI (I² = 63.6%, P = 0.005). Due to the limited number of eligible studies, quantitative synthesis could not be conducted for secondary endpoints, including progression-free survival and recurrence-free survival.
conclusionThe current meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence from observational studies to support the CCI and CACI as factors associated with survival in patients with pancreatic cancer. However, given the substantial heterogeneity and observational design of the included studies, these indices should be interpreted as prognostic association markers rather than standalone clinical decision tools. The findings should be cautiously interpreted. Future prospective studies are required for validation. Integrated prediction models combining these indices with molecular markers should be explored.
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.