SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Prognostic significance of the C-reactive protein-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with cancers.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The C-reactive protein-to-lymphocyte ratio (CLR), a novel inflammation-based biomarker, has been reported to be associated with prognosis in various cancers. However, the prognostic significance of CLR remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the prognostic value of CLR in patients with cancers. Methods: Relevant studies were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to March 21, 2026. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the association between CLR and survival outcomes, including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: A total of 22 studies from 18 articles involving 7220 patients were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated that elevated CLR was significantly associated with poorer OS (HR:1.65, 95% CI: 1.43-1.91), PFS (HR:1.53, 95% CI: 1.15-2.05), and DFS (HR:1.67, 95% CI: 1.41-1.97). Subgroup analysis further confirmed the prognostic value of CLR across country, treatment method, sample size, cancer type and analysis type. Conclusions: Elevated CLR was significantly associated with unfavorable survival outcomes in cancers and may serve as a promising prognostic biomarker in clinical practice.
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.