Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36145159›Full record

ArticleNutrients2022

A Prognostic Model Based on Nutritional Risk Index in Operative Breast Cancer.

Fei Lin, Wen Xia, Miao Chen, Tongchao Jiang, Jia Guo, Yi Ouyang, Haohui Sun, Xiaoyu Chen, Wuguo Deng, Ling Guo and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors.

Fei LinThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Wen XiaThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Miao ChenThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Tongchao JiangThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Jia GuoThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Yi OuyangThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Haohui SunThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Xiaoyu ChenThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Wuguo DengThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Ling GuoThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7133-3951
Huanxin LinThe State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81773103National Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China 82102838Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2017A030313617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe nutritional risk index (NRI) is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in various cancers, but its prognostic value in breast cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to explore the relationship between the NRI and overall survival (OS) in breast cancer and to develop a predictive nomogram.

methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 1347 breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy or lumpectomy between January 2011 and November 2012. Using a cutoff value of 110.59, patients were divided into a high-NRI group and a low-NRI group. OS was compared between the two groups. Clinicopathological factors independently associated with survival were used to construct a predictive nomogram.

resultsOf the 1347 patients, 534 patients were classified as high NRI and 813 as low NRI. OS was significantly shorter in low-NRI patients. The 3- and 5-year OS rates were 87.3% and 73.4%, respectively, in the high-NRI group whereas they were 83.0% and 67.2%, respectively, in the low-NRI group. Cox regression analysis found that histopathological type, tumor size, lymph node status, progesterone receptor (PR) status, Ki-67, and NRI were independently associated with OS.

conclusionsNRI is an independent prognostic factor of OS in breast cancer patients. The proposed nomogram model may be a useful tool for individualized survival prediction.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansKi-67 AntigenMastectomyPrognosisReceptors, ProgesteroneRetrospective StudiesKi-67 AntigenReceptors, Progesteronebreast cancernomogramnutritional risk index (NRI)prognosis

Identifiers

PMID36145159
PMCPMC9502262

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.