SynthesisBMJ open2025
Association between Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index and survival outcomes in patients with urological cancers: an updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative geriatric nutritional risk index as a predictor of intraoperative hypothermia in esophageal cancer surgery.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Comparative Prognostic Accuracy of Objective Nutritional Indices in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Preoperative low Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index increases intensive care unit admission risk in patients undergoing gastrointestinal tumor surgery.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Predictive value of the systemic immune-inflammation index and geriatric nutritional risk index on the efficacy of immunotherapy and survival prognosis in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- The joint role of systemic immune-inflammation index and geriatric nutritional risk index in cancer survivors and their impact on all-cause mortality.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) and survival outcomes in patients with urological cancer.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library from inception to 7 July 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they examined the correlation between the GNRI and long-term survival outcomes in adult patients (≥18 years old) with urological cancers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test for outcomes with more than 10 studies. Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were performed.
results17 studies involving 8816 patients were included. Study quality assessment showed that 15 studies had a low risk of bias (scores 7-9) and two had a high risk (scores 5-6). Low GNRI was significantly associated with poor overall survival (OS) (HR: 2.6, 95% CI: 2.0 to 3.38, p<0.00001, I² = 64%, 13 studies), cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.98, p<0.00001, I² = 75%, 7 studies), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.1, p=0.04, I² = 58%, four studies) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.54 to 2.23, p<0.00001, I² = 0%, five studies). Funnel plot and Egger's test (p=0.948) indicated a low risk of publication bias for OS. GRADE assessment showed low certainty of evidence for OS and PFS, and very low certainty for CSS and RFS. Meta-regression identified follow-up time and sample size as significant sources of heterogeneity.
conclusionsA low GNRI is significantly associated with poor survival outcomes in patients with urological cancer. The GNRI may serve as a valuable prognostic tool in clinical practice. Further research is needed to validate these findings in diverse populations and to explore the underlying biological mechanisms. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023476678.
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.