ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2026
The clinical significance of the modified Naples prognostic score for prostate cancer: a population-based study.
Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Naples Prognostic Score (NPS) is a widely recognized scoring system used to assess inflammation and nutrition status, yet its role in prostate cancer (PCa) remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the association between the modified NPS (MNPS) and PCa prevalence and mortality outcomes among participants with self-reported PCa.
methodsData from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2018 were collected. The NPS was calculated using MaxStat analysis, while M1NPS and M2NPS were constructed with X-Tile analysis. Weighted logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for PCa prevalence. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR) were employed to analyze the mortality risk.
resultsAmong 22,027 individuals, 717 had PCa. After considering the interactions among different factors and adjusting for confounding variables, the prevalence of PCa was notably higher in participants with the highest MNPS groups (group 3) compared with those with the lowest groups (group 1) (OR (95% CI) = 2.96 (1.57-5.57) for M1NPS; 15.50 (1.78-134.71) for M2NPS). With a median follow-up of 9.92 years, 326 (45.47%) of all-cause deaths occurred among participants with self-reported PCa. Significant differences in all-cause mortality were observed between the MNPS groups (log-rank P < 0.001 for M1NPS and M2NPS). Compared to participants with self-reported PCa in group 1, the adjusted HRs for all-cause mortality in group 3 were 1.12 (95% CI: 0.49-2.57) for M1NPS and 2.02 (95% CI: 1.19-3.44) for M2NPS. Furthermore, a significant association was found between M2NPS and cardiovascular mortality (HR (95% CI) = 4.77 (1.95-11.65).
conclusionThe modified and optimized NPS, which integrates inflammation and nutritional status, is associated with PCa prevalence and with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among individuals with self-reported PCa.
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.