Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39127425›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2024

Prevalence of and Survival with Cachexia among Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Tomoya Takaoka, Akinori Yaegashi, Daiki Watanabe

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Defining Cachexia in Children With Cancer in the United States: Developing a Framework to Inform Clinical and Research Practice.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tomoya TakaokaMedical Science Division, Department of Medical Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Science and Technology, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan; Division of Clinical Nutrition, Shinshu University Hospital, Nagano, Japan.
Akinori YaegashiDepartment of Health and Nutrition, Faculty of Human Science, Hokkaido Bunkyo University, Hokkaido, Japan; Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan.
Daiki WatanabeFaculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, Saitama, Japan; National Institute of Health and Nutrition, National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, Osaka, Japan. Electronic address: d2watanabe@aoni.waseda.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cachexia is associated with lower overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer; however, the relationship between the two is reported to differ according to the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia. We aimed to investigate 1) the difference in the prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer and 2) the association between cachexia and OS, depending on the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia in patients with cancer. We searched PubMed and Web of Science from their inception until July 31, 2023, to identify eligible studies. We conducted a systematic review of the prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer and performed a meta-analysis to investigate its relationship with OS. A total of 125 articles comprising 137,960 patients were included in the systematic review, and 26 articles consisting of 11,118 patients underwent meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer was 33.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.8, 33.3); however, it varied according to the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia (13.9%-56.5%). According to the Fearon 2011 criteria, the prevalence of cachexia was associated with a high hazard ratio (HR) for OS compared with that of noncachexia [HR: 1.58 (95% CI: 1.45, 1.73)]; according to the other criteria, the HR was 2.78 (95% CI: 1.88, 4.11), indicating significant subgroup differences (P = 0.006). The dose-response curve indicated that the HR for OS plateaued at a cachexia prevalence range of 40%-50% (l-shaped relationship). The prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer may vary depending on the definitive criteria used to diagnose cachexia. The HR for OS was higher for low cachexia prevalence. The definitive criteria should be carefully considered when assessing cachexia in patients with cancer. This trial was registered at the PROSPERO as CRD42023435474.

Indexed as

CachexiaNeoplasmsHumansPrevalencecancer cachexiadefinitive criteriadiagnostic accuracyheterogeneityprognosis

Identifiers

PMID39127425
PMCPMC11402144

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.