Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27096158›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Localized and Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lu Tang, Xintao Li, Baojun Wang, Guoxiong Luo, Liangyou Gu, Luyao Chen, Kan Liu, Yu Gao, Xu Zhang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Lu TangState Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease, Department of Urology, Chinese PLA Medical Academy, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Xintao LiState Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease, Department of Urology, Chinese PLA Medical Academy, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Baojun WangState Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease, Department of Urology, Chinese PLA Medical Academy, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Guoxiong LuoState Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease, Department of Urology, Chinese PLA Medical Academy, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Liangyou GuState Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease, Department of Urology, Chinese PLA Medical Academy, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Luyao ChenState Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease, Department of Urology, Chinese PLA Medical Academy, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Kan LiuState Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease, Department of Urology, Chinese PLA Medical Academy, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Yu GaoState Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease, Department of Urology, Chinese PLA Medical Academy, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Xu ZhangState Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease, Department of Urology, Chinese PLA Medical Academy, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0608-6509

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVE AND

backgroundIncreasing evidence suggests that inflammation plays an essential role in cancer development and progression. The inflammation marker neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is correlated with prognosis across a wide variety of tumor types, but its prognostic value in prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. In the present meta-analysis, the prognostic value of NLR in PCa patients is investigated.

methodsWe performed a meta-analysis to determine the predictive value of NLR for overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and clinical features in patients with PCa. We systematically searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Embase for relevant studies published up to October 2015.

resultsA total of 9418 patients from 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Elevated pretreatment NLR predicted poor OS (HR 1.628, 95% CI 1.410-1.879) and RFS (HR 1.357, 95% CI 1.126-1.636) in all patients with PCa. However, NLR was insignificantly associated with OS in the subgroup of patients with localized PCa (HR 1.439, 95% CI 0.753-2.75). Increased NLR was also significantly correlated with lymph node involvement (OR 1.616, 95% CI 1.167-2.239) but not with pathological stage (OR 0.827, 95% CI 0.637-1.074) or Gleason score (OR 0.761, 95% CI 0.555-1.044).

conclusionsThe present meta-analysis indicated that NLR could predict the prognosis for patients with locally advanced or castration-resistant PCa. Patients with higher NLR are more likely to have poorer prognosis than those with lower NLR.

Indexed as

Cell CountHumansLymphocytesMaleNeutrophilsPrognosisProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27096158
PMCPMC4838250

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.