Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33608012›Full record

ReviewCancer cell international2021

Prognostic significance of pretreatment controlling nutritional status score in urological cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xinhao Niu, Zhe Zhu, Juan Bao

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer cell international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 11 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. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

3 authors.

Xinhao NiuDepartment of Urinary Surgery, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, No. 2901 Caolang Road, 201508, Shanghai, China.
Zhe ZhuDepartment of Urinary Surgery, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, No. 2901 Caolang Road, 201508, Shanghai, China.
Juan BaoDepartment of Urinary Surgery, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, No. 2901 Caolang Road, 201508, Shanghai, China. bj901120@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6912-2709

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundControlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is a novel nutrition-based biomarker that has been reported for predicting survival in various cancers. However, the relationship between CONUT score and prognosis of urological cancers remains unclear. Hence, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic significance of CONUT score for patients with urological cancers.

methodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were systematically searched up to October 2020. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the association of CONUT score with overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and recurrence/disease/progress-free survival (RFS/DFS/PFS) in urological cancers.

resultsA total of 12 articles with 13 studies were included in the analysis. Pooled results indicated that increased CONUT score predicted poor OS (HR: 1.78, 95% CI 1.51-2.09, p < 0.001), CSS (HR: 2.14, 95% CI 1.55-2.97, p < 0.001) and RFS/DFS/PFS (HR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.35-1.84, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis by cancer type revealed that high CONUT score associated with worse OS in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and urothelial cancer (UC) (HR: 3.05, 95% CI 2.07-4.50, p < 0.001; HR: 1.58, 95% CI 1.32-1.89, p < 0.001). Similar results could be found in CSS (RCC HR: 2.67, 95% CI 1.87-3.81, p < 0.011; UC HR: 1.68, 95% CI 1.09-2.59, p = 0.011) and in RFS/DFS/PFS (RCC HR: 1.96, 95% CI 1.44-2.66, p < 0.001; UC HR: 1.42, 95% CI 1.18-1.71, p < 0.001).

conclusionsThese results illustrated that the high CONUT score may predict worse survival for patients suffering from urological cancers. Therefore, the CONUT score may represent an effective prognostic indicator in urological cancers.

Indexed as

CONUT scoreMeta‐analysisPrognosisUrological cancers

Identifiers

PMID33608012
PMCPMC7893866

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.