Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31752770›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2019

Exploring the value of new preoperative inflammation prognostic score: white blood cell to hemoglobin for gastric adenocarcinoma patients.

Hua-Long Zheng, Jun Lu, Jian-Wei Xie, Jia-Bin Wang, Jian-Xian Lin, Qi-Yue Chen, Long-Long Cao, Mi Lin, Ru-Hong Tu, Ze-Ning Huang and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hua-Long ZhengDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Jun LuDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Jian-Wei XieDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Jia-Bin WangDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Jian-Xian LinDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Qi-Yue ChenDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Long-Long CaoDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Mi LinDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Ru-Hong TuDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Ze-Ning HuangDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Ju-Li LinDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Ping LiDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. Pingli811002@163.com.
Chao-Hui ZhengDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. wwkzch@163.com.
Chang-Ming HuangDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, No.29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. hcmlr2002@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0019-885X
Fujian Medical University · CN

Funding

Construction Project of Fujian Province Minimally Invasive Medical Center No.[2017]171QIHANG funds of Fujian Medical University No.2016QH025the Scientific and technological innovation joint capital projects of Fujian Province 2016Y9031The second batch of special support funds for Fujian Province innovation and entrepreneurship talents 2016B013Youth scientific research subject of Fujian provincial health and family planning commission No.2015-1-37
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR), and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) reflect the systematic inflammatory response, with some evidence revealing that they are associated with poorer survival in patients with gastric cancer. However, the effect of the white blood cell to hemoglobin ratio (WHR) on the long-term prognosis of patients with gastric cancer has not been reported. Therefore, we sought to characterize the effect of WHR on long-term survival after radical gastrectomy and compare its value with that of other preoperative inflammation-based prognostic scores (PIPS).

methodsData from 924 patients with a diagnosis of nonmetastatic gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent surgical resection between December 2009 and May 2013 were included in this study.

resultsThe optimal cutoff values for the WHR, PLR, LMR, and NLR were 2.855, 133.03, 3.405, and 2.61, respectively. Patients with an increased WHR (53% vs. 88.1%, p < 0.001), PLR (60.9% vs 75.6%, p < 0.001) and NLR (56.7% vs 72.8%, p < 0.001) and a decreased LMR (54% vs 74.5%, p < 0.001) had a significantly decreased 5-year OS. However, the stratified analysis showed that only the WHR predicted a significant 5-year survival rate difference at each stage as follows: stage I (82.7% vs 94.3%, p = 0.005), stage II (71.3% vs 90.2%, p = 0.001) and stage III (38.2% vs 58.1%, p < 0.001). The time-ROC curve showed that the predictive value of the WHR was superior to that of the PLR, LMR, and NLR during follow-up. The WHR (0.624) C-index was significantly greater than the PLR (0.569), LMR (0.584), and NLR C-indexes (0.56) (all P < 0.001).

conclusionCompared with other PIPS, the WHR had the most powerful predictive ability when used for the prognosis of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedFemaleGastrectomyHemoglobinsHumansLeukocyte CountMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProspective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeHemoglobinsGastric cancerLong-term survivalPreoperative inflammation-based prognostic scores (PIPS)

Identifiers

PMID31752770
PMCPMC6868868
OpenAlexW2989623964

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.