Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39961710›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2025

Association between Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index and survival outcomes in patients with urological cancers: an updated meta-analysis.

I-Wen Chen, Jui-Hung Hsu, Jing-Cyuan Huang, Wei-Cheng Liu, Jheng-Yan Wu, Kuei-Fen Wang, Kuo-Chuan Hung

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

I-Wen ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chi Mei Medical Center, Liouying, Tainan, Taiwan.
Jui-Hung HsuDepartment of Medical Education, Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital of the CGMF, Keelung, Taiwan Province, Taiwan.
Jing-Cyuan HuangDepartment of General Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Wei-Cheng LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Jheng-Yan WuDepartment of Nutrition, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3290-1909
Kuei-Fen WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Kuo-Chuan HungSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan ed102605@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4507-8085

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Geriatric AssessmentNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentUrologic NeoplasmsAgedHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsMeta-AnalysisNutritional supportUrological tumours

Identifiers

PMID39961710
PMCPMC11962781

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.