Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36713504›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Prognostic impact of geriatric nutritional risk index on patients with urological cancers: A meta-analysis.

Quan Wu, Fagen Ye

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Quan WuClinical Laboratory, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital of Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Fagen YeDepartment of Urology, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital of Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Huzhou Central Hospital · CNHuzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite previous research examining the predictive value of the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) in individuals with urological cancers (UCs), results have been conflicting. This study aimed to comprehensively explore the potential link between GNRI and the prognosis of UCs using a meta-analysis. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically and exhaustively searched. We estimated the prognostic importance of the GNRI in patients with UCs by calculating the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on survival outcomes. Publication bias was identified using Egger's test and Begg's funnel plot. Results: Eight trials with 6,792 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Patients with UCs who had a lower GNRI before treatment had a higher risk of experiencing worse overall survival (HR = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.69-4.09, p < 0.001), recurrence-free survival/progression-free survival (HR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.51-2.08, p < 0.001), and cancer-specific survival (HR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.28-4.20, p = 0.006). Moreover, the subgroup analysis did not change the predictive significance of the GNRI in individuals with UCs. Neither Egger's nor Begg's test indicated substantial bias in this analysis. Conclusion: As a result of our meta-analysis, we found that a low GNRI strongly predicts poor prognosis for patients with UCs. A lower pretreatment GNRI indicates poor survival outcomes in UCs.

Indexed as

clinical useGNRImeta-analysissurvivalurological cancers

Identifiers

PMID36713504
PMCPMC9875083
OpenAlexW4315497935

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.