SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Prognostic value of controlling nutritional status score (CONUT) in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Controlling nutritional status score predicts clinical outcome in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- An albumin-based immune-nutritional score for predicting complete response, organ preservation, and toxicity after neoadjuvant PD-1-based therapy in low rectal cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study assesses the prognostic value of the controlling nutritional status score (CONUT) in colorectal cancer patients.
methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases until December 2024. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for data synthesis. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were used to assess the results stability and heterogeneity sources. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 15.1.
resultsFifteen studies involving 9,258 colorectal cancer patients were included. Meta-analysis showed higher CONUT scores were linked to shorter OS (HR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.70–2.65; P < 0.00001), DFS (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.11–2.64; P = 0.02), and RFS (HR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.39–2.20; P < 0.00001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of CONUT’s prognostic value for OS, DFS, and RFS. Subgroup analysis identified the CONUT cut-off value as a major factor contributing to OS heterogeneity.
conclusionsCONUT appears to be associated with worse prognosis in colorectal cancer patients. However, due to potential publication bias, heterogeneity, and the retrospective study design, further large-scale, multicenter, prospective cohort studies are required to confirm its prognostic utility.
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.