ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2024
Predictive value of prognostic nutritional index for outcomes of cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic Nutritional Index and Cancer Prognostic Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Pooled it
- Pretreatment prognostic nutritional index and immune status for response to preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cervical squamous cell carcinoma: an exploratory retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Relationship between prognostic nutritional index and asthma: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer is a major global health concern. Prognostic markers for cervical cancer have traditionally focused on tumor characteristics. However, there is a growing recognition of the importaxnce of the nutritional status of the patient as a possible prognostic indicator. The present meta-analysis aims to estimate the role of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in predicting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with cervical cancer. Medline, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Cochrane Central databases were systematically searched for studies reporting PNI in patients with cervical cancer. Inclusion criteria were applied to select relevant studies and data extraction was performed by two independent investigators. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The present meta-analysis included 10 studies with 2,352 participants. The pooled analysis showed that in patients with cervical cancer PNI did not have a significant prognostic utility in predicting OS [univariate hazard ration (HR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-2.48) or PFS (univariate HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.44-2.68). These results were consistent even after adjusting for other confounders using multivariate analysis (pooled HR: 1.06 for OS; 95% CI: 0.64-1.76; pooled HR: 1.22 for PFS; 95% CI: 0.65-2.30). Subgroup analyses were also performed based on region, PNI cut-off, sample size, grade of evidence and treatment protocol and did not demonstrate any significant prognostic value of PNI. The funnel plot demonstrated symmetry, suggesting the absence of publication bias. The present meta-analysis indicated that PNI does not have a significant prognostic utility in predicting OS or PFS in women with cervical cancer. Further research is warranted to explore alternative nutritional indicators and identify reliable prognostic markers in this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.