ArticleMedicine2025
Prognostic value of nutritional risk index in esophageal cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe nutritional risk index (NRI) and its modified version, the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), are simple formula-based tools reflecting nutritional and inflammatory status. While several studies have investigated their prognostic value in esophageal cancer (EC), results remain inconsistent, and no prior meta-analysis has directly compared NRI and GNRI in this context. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to thoroughly assess the prognostic significance of NRI/GNRI in EC.
methodsPossible studies were obtained from Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from their inception to November 2024. A relative ratio (RR) and a hazard ratio (HR) were extracted and pooled to analyze the correlation between the prognosis of EC and NRI/GNRI.
resultsThe final meta-analysis included 10 studies, with 2600 patients. As displayed in the pooled results, high NRI/GNRI predicted superior overall survival (HR = 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53-2.07, P < .01) and distant metastasis-free survival/progression-free survival/recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.52-2.51, P < .01). The association was presented between low NRI/GNRI and more lymph node metastasis (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01-1.38, P = .040), deeper tumor invasion (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01-1.38, P = .040), as well as advanced tumor stage (RR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.10-1.58, P = .003).
conclusionBoth NRI and GNRI are independent prognostic factors in EC. Incorporating nutritional risk screening into routine clinical practice may support early intervention and improve treatment outcomes, particularly in surgical patients.
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.