SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Prognostic value of prognostic nutritional index in patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accumulating evidence indicates an association between the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and prognosis in patients with ovarian cancer (OC). However, the conclusions drawn from current studies remain controversial. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, covering the period from each database's inception up to July 8, 2025, to identify studies investigating the relationship between PNI and clinical outcomes. Eligible studies were identified and selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-specific survival (DSS), which were quantified using hazard ratios (HR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: We analyzed thirteen cohort studies involving 5,129 patients. Meta-analysis findings demonstrated an association between reduced PNI and poorer PFS (HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.24-2.03; p=0.0002) and curtailed OS (HR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.36-2.18; p<0.00001), whereas no such correlation was observed in the DSS (HR = 1.88, 95% CI: 0.70-5.10; p=0.21) and CSS (HR = 1.91, 95% CI: 0.81-4.52; p=0.14) analyses. Conclusion: A low PNI is associated with shortened OS and PFS in OC patients. PNI thus serves as a robust biomarker for prognostic evaluation in this patient population, providing meaningful implications to guide clinical decision-making in the context of OC. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251116811, identifier CRD420251116811.
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.