4.5 Article

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

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 641-647

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据