ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022
A comparison of three preoperative nutritional assessment methods for predicting ovarian cancer patient prognosis: which is better?
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ovarian cancer and malnutrition: a literature review.Translational cancer research · 2025Review
- The impact of preoperative immunonutritional status on prognosis in ovarian cancer: a multicenter real-world study.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Association of prognostic nutritional index with muscle loss and survival in patients with ovarian cancer treated with primary debulking surgery and chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Independent predictive value of blood inflammatory composite markers in ovarian cancer: recent clinical evidence and perspective focusing on NLR and PLR.Journal of ovarian research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study aimed to compare the predictive values of three widely used nutritional assessment methods, body mass index (BMI), Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), and the prognostic nutritional index (PNI), for different clinical prognostic indicators of ovarian cancer patients.
methodsPatients diagnosed with ovarian cancer treated in our hospital between January 2017 and March 2019 were retrospectively included. The three nutritional assessment methods were assessed, and multivariable analysis was conducted to explore predictive factors for clinical prognoses. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) were generated to evaluate the discriminative abilities of the three nutritional assessment tools.
resultsA total of 442 patients were recruited. Multivariable analysis revealed that the PNI value predicted 1-year death and 1-year recurrence and that both the NRS 2002 score and the PNI value predicted 30-day readmission (P < 0.05). For PNI, AUROCs were 0.834 for predicting 1-year death and 0.719 for 1-year recurrence prediction; for NRS, the AUROC was 0.820 2002 for predicting 30-day readmission. The optimal cutoff values that maximized the prognostic prediction ability were PNI values of 47.75 g/L and 50.40 g/L for 1-year death and 1-year recurrence, respectively, and an NRS 2002 score of 3 points for 30-day readmission following discharge.
conclusionFor ovarian cancer patients, the PNI is better at predicting 1-year death and 30-day readmission after discharge, and the NRS 2002 is superior for predicting 1-year recurrence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.