4.5 Article

Prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in sepsis: A meta-analysis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 641-647

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.10.023

Keywords

Sepsis; Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; Prognosis; Meta-analysis

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technology Development Project of Qinzhou [201614505, 201616814]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been used to predict the prognosis of patients with sepsis with inconsistent results. This meta-analysis aimed to clarify the prognostic value of NLR in patients with sepsis. Methods: A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies, published prior to March 2019, was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and the China National Knowledge. Infrastructure database. Standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to evaluate the NLR of patients with sepsis retrospectively. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were used to evaluate the prognostic value of NLR in patients with sepsis. Results: Patients from 14 studies (n = 11,564) were selected for evaluation. Nine studies (1371 patients) analyzed the NLR in these patients. The pooled results showed significantly higher NLR in non-survivors than in survivors (random-effects model: SMD = 1.18, 95% CI; 0.42-1.94). Nine studies (10,685 patients) evaluated the prognostic value of NLR for sepsis; the pooled results showed that higher NLR was associated with poor prognosis in patients with sepsis (fixed-effects model: HR = 1.75, 95% CI; 1.56-1.97). Subgroup analysis revealed that study design, cut-off NLR, or primary outcome did not affect the prognostic value of NLR in patients with sepsis. Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that NLR may be a helpful prognostic biomarker of patients with sepsis and that higher NLR values may indicate unfavorable prognoses in these patients. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available