SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Clinical impact of clonal hematopoiesis on patients with solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) is a common age-related phenomenon associated with an increased risk of hematologic malignancies and cardiovascular disease. Its prognostic significance in patients with solid tumors remains unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the association between CH and clinical outcomes, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality in patients with solid tumors. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines, including 21 studies comprising 4845 patients with CH and 63557 patients without CH. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were pooled using random-effects or fixed-effects models as appropriate, based on assessments of between-study heterogeneity. Results: CH was not significantly associated with OS in patients with solid tumors (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92-1.32, Conclusion: Our meta-analysis indicated that CH mutations have a prognostic value and are associated with a clinically meaningful increased risk of overall mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with solid tumors.
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.