Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36456008›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of the Prognostic Nutritional Index in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours undergoing surgery: a meta-analysis.

Niansong Kang, Hongping Gu, Yuehan Ni, Xia Wei, Sihui Zheng

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The combined effect of nutritional status and body mass index on 90-day adverse events following long-segments fusion for adult spinal deformity: a propensity score-matched analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Niansong Kang *Department of Gastroenterology, Yuyao Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
Hongping Gu *Department of Gastroenterology, Yuyao Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
Yuehan NiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yuyao Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China 215469267@qq.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3886-4560
Xia WeiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hangzhou TCM Hospital Affiliated to Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Sihui ZhengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Clinical Medical College of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Zhejiang Chinese Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrevious studies have investigated the prognostic value of the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). However, the results have been inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis to quantitatively determine the prognostic and clinicopathological significance of PNI in GISTs.

designThis meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were calculated to estimate the prognostic value of PNI in patients with GISTs. Combined ORs and corresponding 95% CIs were used to evaluate the association between the PNI and clinicopathological characteristics. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library were thoroughly searched from inception to December 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: A random-effects model or fixed-effects model was selected based on the level of heterogeneity among the included studies.

resultsEight studies comprising 2307 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A low PNI was significantly associated with worse recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.47, p<0.001) and overall survival (OS) (HR 4.35, 95% CI 1.25 to 16.83, p=0.033) in patients with GISTs. In addition, a low PNI was significantly associated with tumour size ≥5 cm (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.24, p=0.002) and primary tumour site in small intestine/colorectum/extra-GISTs (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.26, p=0.004).

conclusionsPatients with GISTs and a lower PNI had inferior RFS and OS. Patients with GISTs and a low PNI may have a higher risk of tumour recurrence.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal Stromal TumorsColonDatabases, FactualHumansNutrition AssessmentPrognosisepidemiologygastroenterologygastrointestinal tumoursnutritionnutritional support

Identifiers

PMID36456008
PMCPMC9717127
OpenAlexW4310493686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.