SynthesisPeerJ2025
Prognostic value of lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in patients with endometrial cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2025. 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 value of lymphocyte to monocyte ratio for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PeerJ · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Study on risk stratification and treatment strategy of blood indicators in patients with moderate risk of GIST.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evaluating the risk of metastasis at diagnosis and the likelihood of future recurrence is crucial for the effective management of endometrial cancer (EC). While conventional prognostic indicators hold importance, they often fall short in predicting recurrence, especially in low-risk patients. This study evaluates the prognostic value of the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in EC patients. Methods: Eligible studies that provided pretreatment cutoff values of LMR, hazard ratios (HRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS, DFS, CSS, and progression-free survival (PFS) were included in this meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers collected and evaluated the data, and the quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Statistical analyses were performed using STATA software, and subgroup analyses were conducted by race, sample size, and age to assess the consistency of LMR's prognostic value across different population groups. Results: In this meta-analysis, eight studies were included for OS (1,997 patients) and five studies were included for DFS (1,590 patients). LMR was significantly associated with OS (HR 2.29; 95% CI [1.50-3.51]; Discussion: LMR serves as a valuable prognostic marker for OS, DFS, and CSS in EC patients. Its predictive power remains significant across diverse population groups, underscoring its potential utility in clinical practice. Biological mechanisms linking inflammation and cancer support the role of LMR in prognosis, given the functions of lymphocytes and monocytes in tumor progression and immune response. These findings suggest that incorporating LMR into current prognostic models could enhance risk stratification for EC patients, particularly for identifying those at higher risk of recurrence despite being classified as low risk by traditional systems. In conclusion, LMR is a robust, independent prognostic factor for EC, with significant implications for improving patient management and outcomes through better risk stratification.
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.