DataSheet_1_Association of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and clinical outcomes in patients with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.pdf
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction<p>A novel systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) has been proven to be associated with outcomes in patients with cancer. Although some studies have shown that the SII is a potential and valuable tool to diagnose and predict the advise outcomes in stroke patients. Nevertheless, the findings are controversial, and their association with clinical outcomes is unclear. Consequently, we conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to explore the relationship between SII and clinical outcomes in stroke patients.</p>Methods<p>A search of five English databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) and four Chinese databases (CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and CBM) was conducted. Our study strictly complied with the PRISMA (the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). We used the NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) tool to assess the possible bias of included studies. The endpoints included poor outcome (the modified Rankin Scale [mRS] ≥ 3 points or > 3 points), mortality, the severity of stroke (according to assessment by the National Institute of Health stroke scale [NIHSS] ≥ 5 points), hemorrhagic transformation (HT) were statistically analyzed.</p>Results<p>Nineteen retrospective studies met the eligibility criteria, and a total of 18609 stroke patients were included. Our study showed that high SII is significantly associated with poor outcomes (odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.09, P = 0.001, I<sup>2</sup> = 93%), high mortality (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.75-2.67, P < 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 49%), and the incidence of HT (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.61-2.71, P < 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 42%). We also investigated the difference in SII levels in poor/good outcomes, death/survival, and minor/moderate-severe stroke groups. Our analysis demonstrated that the SII level of the poor outcome, death, and moderate-severe stroke group was much higher than that of the good outcome, survival, and minor stroke group, respectively (standard mean difference [SMD] 1.11, 95% CI 0.61-1.61, P < 0.00001 [poor/good outcome]; MD 498.22, 95% CI 333.18-663.25, P < 0.00001 [death/survival]; SMD 1.35, 95% CI 0.48-2.23, P = 0.002 [severity of stroke]). SII, on the other hand, had no significant impact on recanalization (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86-2.62, P = 0.16).</p>Discussion<p>To the best of our knowledge, this may be the first meta-analysis to look at the link between SII and clinical outcomes in stroke patients. The inflammatory response after a stroke is useful for immunoregulatory treatment. Stroke patients with high SII should be closely monitored, since this might be a viable treatment strategy for limiting brain damage after a stroke. As a result, research into SII and the clinical outcomes of stroke patients is crucial. Our preliminary findings may represent the clinical condition and aid clinical decision-makers. Nonetheless, further research is needed to better understand the utility of SII through dynamic monitoring. To generate more robust results, large-sample and multi-center research are required.</p>Systematic review registration<p>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022371996.</p>
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,203 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».