Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36892953›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of medicine2023

Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis.

Yan Wang, Qunqin Ni

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

2 authors.

Yan WangClinical Laboratory, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital of Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Qunqin NiClinical Laboratory, Traditional Chinese Medical Hospital of Huzhou Affiliated to Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmong malignant neoplasm patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), it remains unknown how the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) affects their clinical prognosis. We therefore performed the present meta-analysis by collecting the most recent data, so that SII's prognostic value among ICI-receiving carcinoma patients could be fully clarified.

methodsFor the prognostic significance evaluation of SII in ICI-receiving carcinoma patients, the combined hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.

resultsThe number of studies enrolled in the present meta-analysis totaled 17, where 1,990 patients were involved. Among the ICI-treated carcinoma patients, a high SII was linked significantly to inferior overall survival (OS) (HR = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.76-3.90), as well as progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.48-2.95) (

conclusionThere are prominent associations of elevated SII with the poor survival outcomes (both short- and long-terms) among the ICIreceiving carcinoma patients. SII has potential as a reliable and cheap prognostic biomarker in the clinic for carcinoma patients receiving ICIs.

Indexed as

CarcinomaImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsAmbulatory Care FacilitiesHumansInflammationPrognosisImmune Checkpoint Inhibitorsevidence-based medicineimmune checkpoint inhibitorsmeta-analysisprognosisSII

Identifiers

PMID36892953
PMCPMC10795596

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.