Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39934700›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2025

Prognostic role of geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) and controlling nutritional status (CONUT) on outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yu-Chieh Huang, Shuo-Wei Chen, Yih-Shien Chiang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. [Comparison of preoperative nutritional scoring systems for predicting survival in upper tract urothelial carcinoma].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Tumour necrosis factor-Frontiers in nutrition · 2025
    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.

Yu-Chieh HuangDepartment of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Keelung College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, No. 222, Maijin Rd., Anle Dist, Keelung City, Taiwan. Mirroronthewall_tw@hotmail.com.
Shuo-Wei ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Chang-Gung Memorial Hospital and University, Keelung City, Taiwan.
Yih-Shien ChiangSenior Engineer, GeneOnline, 177 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 200, Pasadena, CA, 91105, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalnutrition is a common comorbidity in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC), significantly impacting survival rates. The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) and the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score are tools used to assess the nutritional status, yet their prognostic value in HNC remains to be fully established.

methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, to evaluate the prognostic significance of GNRI and CONUT on survival outcomes in patients with HNC. Relevant studies up to March 2024 were identified through comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. The quality of each included study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

resultsSeventeen studies were included, encompassing a total of 3,816 patients with HNC. Our findings reveal that a lower GNRI is consistently associated with poor overall survival (OS, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.47-6.14) and progression-free survival (PFS, aHR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.41-2.21), demonstrating its utility as a prognostic indicator. However, CONUT scores revealed no significant differences in OS (aHR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.94-2.91) or PFS (aHR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.68-3.02).

conclusionGNRI appears to be a reliable prognostic tool for predicting poorer survival outcomes in HNC patients, underscoring the importance of nutritional assessments in this population. Further research is needed to clarify the prognostic value of the CONUT score, which exhibited less consistent results.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentHead and Neck NeoplasmsMalnutritionNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentAgedHumansPrognosisRisk AssessmentCancer-related malnutritionControlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) scoreGeriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI)Head and neck cancer (HNC)Meta-analysisNutritional assessmentOverall survival (OS)Prognostic biomarkersProgression-free survival (PFS)Survival

Identifiers

PMID39934700
PMCPMC11817134

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.