The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review and meta‐analysis of histopathological factors influencing the risk of lymph node metastasis in early colorectal cancer
Open accessAbstract
Aim: Lymph node (LN) metastases are present in up to 17% of early colorectal cancers (p T 1). Identification of associated histopathological factors would enable counselling of patients regarding this risk. Method: Pubmed and E mbase were employed utilizing the terms ‘early colorectal cancer’, ‘lymph node metastasis’, ‘submucosal invasion’, ‘lymphovascular invasion’, ‘tumour budding’ and ‘histological differentiation’. Analysis was performed using REVIEW MANAGER 5.1. Results: Twenty‐three cohort studies including 4510 patients were analysed. There was a significantly higher risk of LN metastasis with a depth of submucosal invasion > 1 mm than with lesser degrees of penetration (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.50–10.00, P = 0.005). Lymphovascular invasion was significantly associated with LN metastasis (OR 4.81, 95% CI 3.14–7.37, P < 0.00001). Poorly differentiated tumours had a higher risk of LN metastasis compared with well or moderately differentiated tumours (OR 5.60, 95% CI 2.90–10.82, P < 0.00001). Tumour budding was found to be significantly associated with LN metastasis (OR 7.74, 95% CI 4.47–13.39, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Meta‐analysis of the current literature demonstrates that in early colorectal cancer a depth of submucosal invasion by the primary tumour of > 1 mm, lymphovascular invasion, poor differentiation and tumour budding are significantly associated with LN metastasis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 · Cited by 12,156
Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum, Watanabe, T., Muro, K., Ajioka, Y., Hashiguchi, Y., Ito, Y., Saito, Y., Hamaguchi, T., Ishida, H., Ishiguro, M., et al. (2018) · International Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1007/s10147-017-1101-6 · Cited by 2,467
meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61 · Cited by 1,374
Cited by
Lugli, A., Kirsch, R., Ajioka, Y., Bosman, F., Cathomas, G., Dawson, H., El Zimaity, H., Fléjou, J.-F., Hansen, T. P., Hartmann, A., et al. (2017) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/modpathol.2017.46 · Cited by 1,156
Metadata
- Authors
- Beaton, C., Twine, C. P., Williams, G. L., & Radcliffe, A. G.
- Venue
- Colorectal Disease
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 788-797
- ISSN
- 1462-8910 (ISSN-L)
- 1463-1318
- OpenAlex
- W2024844400
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.