The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prognostic significance of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUNDS: Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has recently been reported as a predictor of Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its prognostic value in HCC still remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between NLR and clinical outcome of HCC patients by performing meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies published up to August 2013 was performed by using PubMed, Ovid, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Meta-analysis was performed using hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) as effect measures. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies encompassing 3094 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our pooled results showed that high NLR was associated with poor overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) in HCC initially treated by liver transplantation (HR = 3.42, 95% CI:2.41-4.85,P = 0.000; HR = 5.90, 95% CI:3.99-8.70,P = 0.000, respectively) and surgical resection (HR = 3.33, 95% CI:2.23-4.98, P = 0.000; HR = 2.10, 95% CI: 2.06-2.14, respectively). High NLR was also associated with poor OS in HCC treated by radiofrequency-ablation (HR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.10-1.48, P = 0.000), TACE (HR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.64-3.86, P = 0.000) and mixed treatment (HR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.40-2.44, P = 0.000), respectively. In addition, high NLR was significantly correlated with the presence of vascular invasion (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 2.01-3.59, P = 0.000), tumor multifocality (OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.30-2.34, P = 0.000) and higher incidence of AFP ≥ 400 ng/ml (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.01-2.09, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Elevated NLR indicates a poor prognosis for patients with HCC. NLR may be a convenient, easily-obtained, low cost and reliable biomarker with prognostic potential for HCC.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coussens, L. M., & Werb, Z. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01322 · Cited by 15,111
Zahorec, R. (2001) · Bratislava Medical Journal · doi:10.1007/bf03656390 · Cited by 1,601
Cited by
Cupp, M. A., Cariolou, M., Tzoulaki, I., Aune, D., Evangelou, E., & Berlanga-Taylor, A. J. (2020) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01817-1 · Cited by 697
The liver cancer immune microenvironment: Therapeutic implications for hepatocellular carcinoma
Donne, R., & Lujambio, A. (2023) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.32740 · Cited by 631
Sangro, B., Melero, I., Wadhawan, S., Finn, R. S., Abou-Alfa, G. K., Cheng, A.-L., Yau, T., Furuse, J., Park, J.-W., Boyd, Z., et al. (2020) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2020.07.026 · Cited by 407
Recent Updates of Transarterial Chemoembolilzation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Chang, Y., Jeong, S. W., Young Jang, J., & Jae Kim, Y. (2020) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms21218165 · Cited by 336
Mei, Z., Shi, L., Wang, B., Yang, J., Xiao, Z., Du, P., Wang, Q., & Yang, W. (2017) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.05.005 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Authors
- Xiao, W.-K., Chen, D., Li, S.-Q., Fu, S.-J., Peng, B.-G., & Liang, L.-J.
- Venue
- BMC Cancer
- Published
- 2014-02-21
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 117-117
- ISSN
- 1471-2407 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2066404804
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognostic significance of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2407-14-117
- The paper
- Xiao, W.-K., Chen, D., Li, S.-Q., Fu, S.-J., Peng, B.-G., & Liang, L.-J. (2014). Prognostic significance of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-117
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.