Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38835655›Full record

ReviewPorto biomedical journal

Diagnostic accuracy of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and neutrophil-lymphocyte-to-platelet ratio biomarkers in predicting bacteremia and sepsis in immunosuppressive patients with cancer: literature review.

Jose Manuel Martinez, Ana Espírito Santo, Diana Ramada, Filipa Fontes, Rui Medeiros

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Porto biomedical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Jose Manuel MartinezOncology Clinical Research Unit IPO Research Center (CI-IPOP), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre (Porto.CCC) & RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Porto, Portugal.
Ana Espírito SantoOncology Clinical Research Unit IPO Research Center (CI-IPOP), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre (Porto.CCC) & RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Porto, Portugal.
Diana RamadaOncology Nursing Research Unit IPO Research Center (CI-IPOP), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre (Porto.CCC) & RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Porto, Portugal.
Filipa FontesApproach to Precursor Lesions and Early Cancer Research Unit IPO Research Center (CI-IPOP), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre (Porto.CCC) & RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Porto, Portugal.
Rui MedeirosMolecular Oncology and Viral Pathology Group Research Unit IPO Research Center (CI-IPOP), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre (Porto.CCC) & RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This literature review explores the role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and neutrophil-lymphocyte-to-platelet ratio (NLPR) biomarkers, as potential indicators for predicting bacteremia and sepsis in patients with cancer. Objective: Tracing the evolution of interest in this area since 2001, the aim of this review was to report a comprehensive overview of current knowledge and gaps, particularly in patients undergoing immunosuppression. Summary of Findings: The literature research indicates the potential of NLR, PLR, and other biomarkers in diagnosing and predicting sepsis, with some studies emphasizing their value in mortality prediction. A specific focus on bacteremia shows the effectiveness of NLR and PLR as early indicators and prognostic tools, though mostly in noncancer patient populations. While NLR and PLR are promising in general cancer patient populations, the review addresses the challenges in applying these biomarkers to patients with neutropenic and lymphopenic cancer. The NLPR could be considered a significant biomarker for inflammation and mortality risk in various medical conditions, yet its diagnostic accuracy in patients with immunosuppressed cancer is not extensively validated. Conclusion: This review offers a snapshot of the current research on biomarkers in patients with immunocompromised cancer in the sepsis and bacteremia area. More focused research on their application is necessary. This gap underscores an opportunity for future studies to enhance diagnostic and prognostic capabilities in this high-risk group.

Indexed as

bacteremiabiomarkerimmunosuppressiononcologysepsis

Identifiers

PMID38835655
PMCPMC11146520

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.