Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35260921›Full record

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?

Lu Xing, Ruiqi Chen, Jiahui Qian, Jianhua Ren, Xue Deng

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ovarian cancer and malnutrition: a literature review.Translational cancer research · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2023
    Article
  4. 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.

Lu XingDepartment of Gynecological Nursing, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.
Ruiqi ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.
Jiahui QianWest China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.
Jianhua RenKey Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China. huaxi_rjh@126.com.
Xue DengDepartment of Gynecological Nursing, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China. huaxi_dx@126.com.
Sichuan University · CNWest China Hospital of Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Nutrition AssessmentOvarian NeoplasmsFemaleHumansNutritional StatusPrognosisRetrospective StudiesBody mass indexNutritional Risk Screening 2002Nutritional statusOvarian cancerPrognosis predictionPrognostic Nutritional Index

Identifiers

PMID35260921
OpenAlexW4221057308

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.