ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Diagnostic performance of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and sarcopenia index (SI) in sarcopenia and their prognostic value for clinical outcomes in hospitalized older patients.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and sarcopenia index (SI) have been proven to be associated with sarcopenia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the SII, SI, and their combination with calf circumference (CC) in the diagnosis of sarcopenia in hospitalized older patients, as well as to investigate the prognostic value of the SII and SI for overall survival.
methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study on older patients who were admitted to the geriatric ward at Sichuan University's West China Hospital. The SI was calculated by dividing serum creatinine (mg/dl) by serum cystatin C (mg/L), whereas the SII was calculated by multiplying the platelet count (×10
resultsOur study included 307 patients (165 men and 142 women) with a median age of 71 years. The optimal cutoff values for SII, SI, CC, SII-CC, and SI-CC were 464.910 (sensitivity, 51.8%; specificity, 68.3%), 0.815 (sensitivity, 72.3%; specificity, 64.3%), 32.6 (sensitivity, 78.3%; specificity, 77.2%), 0.302 (sensitivity, 78.3%; specificity, 79.5%), and 0.230 (sensitivity, 83.1%; specificity, 74.6%), with AUCs of 0.620 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.549-0.691), 0.709 (95% CI: 0.642-0.777), 0.840 (95% CI: 0.793-0.887), 0.843 (95% CI: 0.796-0.889), and 0.859 (95% CI: 0.816-0.902), respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, CC, physical activity levels, malnutrition, hypertension, diabetes, CHD, COPD, CKD, stroke, and cancer, sarcopenia defined by SII was independently associated with a higher mortality risk (HR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.15-4.52).
conclusionsThe combination of SII with CC and SI with CC demonstrated advantageous diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing sarcopenia compared to SII and SI used independently. SII may serve as a serum indicator for predicting all-cause mortality in hospitalized older patients, though this requires further external validation. Additional well-designed prospective studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm our findings.
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.