SynthesisBMC cancer2026
Prognostic value of the prognostic nutritional index for patients with renal cell carcinoma: an update systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the prognostic value of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, providing reliable evidence for clinical practice.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database from inception to October 2025. Observational studies evaluating the association between PNI and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in patients with RCC were included. Two researchers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran’s Q test and the I² statistic. Publication bias was analyzed using the Egger’s test and the trim-and-fill method.
resultsA total of 14 studies, involving 7147 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed that higher PNI was associated with significantly improved OS (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33–0.58, P < 0.00001), PFS (HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35–0.61, P < 0.00001), and CSS (HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45–0.79, P = 0.0003). Moderate to high heterogeneity was observed for OS and PFS (I²=63%-69%), but sensitivity analyses were robust. Publication bias testing revealed a slight bias in OS, and the results remained unchanged after trimming and filling adjustment.
conclusionPNI is an independent prognostic factor for RCC patients, with higher PNI significantly associated with better survival outcomes. PNI integrates nutritional and inflammatory status and is a simple and low-cost clinical tool suitable for risk stratification and personalized management. Future prospective studies are needed to verify its clinical utility and optimize the cutoff criteria.
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.