Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34622317›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2022

Comparison of nutritional and immunological scoring systems predicting prognosis in T1-2N0 colorectal cancer.

Guangzhe Pian, Seung Yeop Oh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Guangzhe PianDepartment of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164, World cup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, 16499, Korea.
Seung Yeop OhDepartment of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164, World cup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, 16499, Korea. kgsosy@ajou.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7181-2538
Ajou University · KRYanbian University Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrevious studies have shown that the new nutritional and immunological status scoring systems of the Naples prognostic score (NPS), controlling nutritional status score (CONUT), and the older prognostic nutritional index (PNI) are independent predictors in colorectal cancer. This study compares the prognostic value of NPS, CONUT, and PNI in T1-2N0 colorectal cancer.

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 305 consecutive stage I (T1-2N0M0) colorectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery from January 2010 to December 2015 at our hospital. The NPS results were divided into 3 groups (0, 1, and 2 groups), and the PNI and CONUT results were divided into 2 groups (low and high groups).

resultsThe patients with low PNI had worse overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) than those with high PNI (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that PNI was independently associated with OS and DFS (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively), but NPS and CONUT results were not.

conclusionThe PNI is an independent predictor in stage I colorectal cancer, but NPS and CONUT results are not.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsNutrition AssessmentHumansNutritional StatusPrognosisRetrospective StudiesColorectal cancerControlling nutritional status scoreNaples prognostic scorePrognostic nutritional indexT1-2N0M0

Identifiers

PMID34622317
OpenAlexW3204773850

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.