SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several biomarkers have been studied to explore the possibility of a non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. The aim of this review is to explore the possible role of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a biomarker in the diagnosis of endometriosis. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted across major databases, including full-text papers in English published from 2008 to 2025. The Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome (PICO) design approach has been used. Pooled sensibility, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio were applied. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was also plotted. The bias associated with each included study was evaluated according to the Observational Study Quality Evaluation (OSQE) method. This study is registered on PROSPERO number CRD420251004107. Results: The systematic review included seventeen retrospective studies. A total of 6,679 women were studied, of whom 3,980 had endometriosis, whereas 2,699 were in the control group (including both ovarian benign lesions and ovarian cancer). The meta-analysis conducted has shown that NLR has a sensitivity of 0.66 (0.53-0.78) and a specificity of 0.63 (0.52-0.73); in addition, it has a positive likelihood ratio of 1.79 (1.48-2.17) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.53 (0.41-0.69). Conclusion: There are contrasting results about the non-invasive role of both CA 125 and NLR in diagnosing endometriosis. However, studies that investigated the combination of the markers showed promising results.
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.