ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2022
Clinicopathological differences of high
Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The presence and relative abundance of salivary Fusobacterium nucleatum are not associated with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- KRAS mutation promotes the colonization of Fusobacterium nucleatum in colorectal cancer by down-regulating SERTAD4.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2024Article
- Investigating the causal role of the gut microbiota in esophageal cancer and its subtypes: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Obesity and early-onset colorectal cancer risk: emerging clinical evidence and biological mechanisms.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Review
- Fusobacterium nucleatum Load Correlates with KRAS Mutation and Sessile Serrated Pathogenesis in Colorectal Adenocarcinoma.Cancer research communications · 2023Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the significance of Methods: Literature from Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science was retrieved to collect all English literatures on the correlation between Fn and cancer, and the quality of literatures collected was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The heterogeneity and sensitivity were detected by Stata 14.0 software, and the correlation between Fn and cancer clinicopathological as the effect variables was assessed according to the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The forest plot was drawn. Results: A total of 19 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The incidence of Fn prevalence varied considerably (range: 6.1 to 83.3%) and was greater than 10% in 13 of 19 studies. Compared with those with no/low Fn levels, the high levels of Fn was positively associated with vascular invasion, nerve invasion, depth of invasion, and distant metastasis [vascular invasion: OR = 1.66, 95%CI(1.07, 2.57), Conclusion: This review and meta-analysis showed that Fn could be used to predict unfavorable prognosis and function as potential prognostic biomarkers in colorectal cancer (CRC). Our data may have implications for targeting Fn to develop strategies for cancer prevention and treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.