Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34900692›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as a Prognostic Biomarker for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Xiuqiong Chen, Fanqiao Meng, Richeng Jiang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Xiuqiong ChenTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Fanqiao MengDepartment of Hematology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Richeng JiangTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CNTianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing evidence to suggest that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is related to the prognosis of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, these findings are inconsistent. The present study was performed with the aim of exploring the utility of NLR in patients with RCC treated with ICIs. For this purpose, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed to find studies evaluating the prognostic value of NLR. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the assessed clinical outcomes. All statistical analysis was performed using Stata version 12.0 software. The combined hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of NLR for OS and PFS were calculated using the random-effect models. Heterogeneity was evaluated based on the

Indexed as

biomarkerimmune checkpoint inhibitorneutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratioprognosisrenal cell cancer

Identifiers

PMID34900692
PMCPMC8660071
OpenAlexW3213985685

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.