Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31807513›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019

Pre-treatment Glasgow prognostic score and modified Glasgow prognostic score may be potential prognostic biomarkers in urological cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Feng Qi, Yunqiu Xu, Yuxiao Zheng, Xiao Li, Yang Gao

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Feng QiDepartment of Urology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research & Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Yunqiu XuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.
Yuxiao ZhengDepartment of Urology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research & Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Xiao LiDepartment of Urology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research & Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Yang GaoDepartment of Radiology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research & Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Nanjing Medical University · CNJiangsu Province Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prognostic role of Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) or modified GPS (mGPS) in various cancers has been investigated. However, no unified conclusion could be drawn in urological cancers. So, we aimed to explore the potential role of GPS/mGPS in urological cancers.

methodsRelated studies were searched from PubMed, Web of Science and Embase up to May 30th, 2019 comprehensively. Their associations were assessed by the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsA total of 20 related studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The outcomes revealed that a relatively lower level of pre-treatment GPS/mGPS was associated with better overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS)/disease-specific survival (DSS) and disease-free survival (DFS)/progress-free survival (PFS)/recurrence-free survival (RFS) (pooled HR =2.70; 95% CI, 1.81-4.01; pooled HR =2.90; 95% CI, 2.00-4.22; pooled HR =2.43; 95% CI, 1.62-3.66, respectively). Subgroup analysis by cancer type for OS indicated that GPS/mGPS could also be a predictor no matter in renal cell cancer (RCC) or bladder cancer (BC) (pooled HR =3.60; 95% CI, 2.07-6.28 and pooled HR =2.71; 95% CI, 1.08-6.82). Similar results could be found in CSS/DSS (RCC: HR =4.12; 95% CI, 2.69-6.30) and in DFS/ PFS/RFS (RCC: HR =2.66; 95% CI, 1.82-3.90 and BC: HR =1.52; 95% CI, 1.23-1.88). As for the treatment subgroup, pre-treatment GPS/mGPS played an independent role in OS for patients no matter in which treatment type (Surgery: pooled HR =2.16; 95% CI, 1.43-3.26; Chemotherapy: pooled HR =4.41; 95% CI, 2.27-8.58); the same in CSS/DSS (Surgery: pooled HR =3.28; 95% CI, 1.73-6.20; Immunotherapy: pooled HR =2.72; 95% CI, 1.87-3.96) and DFS/RFS/PFS (Surgery: pooled HR =2.54; 95% CI, 1.65-3.92). Lastly, both GPS and mGPS played prognostic role in OS, CSS/DSS or DFE/RFS/PFS (OS: GPS: pooled HR =2.12; 95% CI, 1.04-4.32; mGPS: pooled HR =3.12; 95% CI, 1.87-5.20; CSS/DSS: GPS: pooled HR =2.87; 95% CI, 2.11-3.91; mGPS: pooled HR =3.00; 95% CI, 1.60-5.63; DFS/RFS/PFS: GPS: pooled HR =3.61; 95% CI, 1.43-9.07; mGPS: pooled HR =1.99; 95% CI, 1.32-2.99).

conclusionsThis study shed light on that GPS/mGPS might be an independent prognostic factor in urological cancers, indicating that a lower level of pre-treatment GPS/mGPS was closely related to better survival outcomes.

Indexed as

Glasgow prognostic score or modified GPS (GPS/mGPS)meta-analysisprognosisurological cancer

Identifiers

PMID31807513
PMCPMC6861778
OpenAlexW2985156460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.