ArticleBMC cancer2025
Prognostic value of nutritional risk assessment indices in patients with digestive system tumors.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNutritional risk assessment indices impact disease prognosis, yet their prognostic roles in preoperative digestive system tumor (DST) patients remain unclear.
methodsIn this study, the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score, the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI) and the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) before surgery were applied to 17, 338 patients with 10 kinds of newly diagnosed DSTs. The distribution of nutritional risk and its correlation with mortality were examined in this study through the utilization of three nutritional risk assessment indices.
resultsThe study encompassed 17,338 cases of DSTs, comprising 7,644 cases of gastric cancer, 5,542 cases of esophageal cancer, 2,826 cases of pancreatic cancer, 570 cases of gastroesophageal junction cancer, 185 cases of liver cancer, and minimal instances of five other tumor types, each numbering approximately 100. According to the 3 nutritional risk assessment indices, CONUT, NRI and PNI, nutrition risk was common in patients with DSTs (79.24% with CONUT, 38.91% with NRI, 3.13% with PNI), and even in patients with normal or high BMI. In gastric cancer, in addition to age, stage, presence of metastasis, and tumor tissue type, three nutritional risk assessment indices could effectively stratify the prognosis based on nutritional status. CONUT was valuable for predicting the prognosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, whereas NRI was significant in Esophageal Cancer and Pancreatic Cancer.
conclusionsNutritional risk was common among DSTs patients and was strongly associated with increased mortality in GC according to CONUT, NRI and PNI Stratification. More attention should be paid to nutritional risk assessment indices to improve prognosis, and prospective clinical trials were needed to evaluate the efficacy of nutritional interventions in GC patients. However, the utility of these three nutritional risk assessment indices in other DSTs was limited.
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.