Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31488105›Full record

SynthesisBMC surgery2019

Prognostic significance of the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kosei Takagi, Piotr Domagala, Wojciech G Polak, Stefan Buettner, Bas P L Wijnhoven, Jan N M Ijzermans

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

Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Kosei TakagiDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. kotakagi15@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2267-2441
Piotr DomagalaDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wojciech G PolakDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Stefan BuettnerDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bas P L WijnhovenDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan N M IjzermansDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, the clinical evidence of the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score has increased in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the association between the preoperative CONUT score and outcomes in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC).

methodsA systematic literature search for studies reporting the prognostic impact of the CONUT score in patients with GC was conducted. Meta-analyses of survival, postoperative outcomes, and postoperative clinico-pathological parameters were conducted.

resultsFive studies with 2482 patients were found to be eligible and subsequently reviewed and analyzed. The CONUT score was significantly associated with overall survival (HR 1.85, 95%CI 1.38-2.48, P <  0.001), cancer-specific survival (HR 2.56, 95%CI 1.24-5.28, P = 0.01) and recurrence/relapse-free survival (HR 1.43, 95%CI 1.12-1.82, P = 0.004). Moreover, the CONUT score was associated with the incidence of postoperative complications (OR 1.39, P = 0.003) and mortality (OR 6.97, P = 0.04), and clinico-pathological parameters (T factor [OR 1.75, P <  0.001], N factor [OR 1.51, P <  0.001], TNM stage [OR 1.73, P <  0.001], and microvascular invasion [OR 1.50, P = 0.006]), but not with tumor differentiation (OR 0.85, P = 0.13).

conclusionsThe preoperative CONUT score is an independent prognostic indicator of survival and postoperative complications, and is associated with clinico-pathological parameters in patients with GC.

Indexed as

Nutritional StatusGastrectomyHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PeriodPrognosisStomach NeoplasmsControlling nutritional status (CONUT) scoreGastrectomyGastric cancerMeta-analysisOutcome

Identifiers

PMID31488105
PMCPMC6729085

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.