Evidence Hub

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of prognosis in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Li-Xia Guo, Xudong Cao, Luyao Chang, Huandong Liu

Frontiers in Neurology, 2025

7,176 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the predictive value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) for prognosis spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science were used for screening literature on NLR predicting ICH prognosis from database up to January 2024. Case–control or cohort studies that provided statistical analysis data on NLR predicting ICH prognosis were included. Data were combined using odds ratio (OR) and standard mean differences (SMD) for categorical variables and continuous variables, respectively. Meta-analysis, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were performed by Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 15.0. Results Meta-analysis of 21 studies with a total of 7,176 patients confirmed that NLR has a significant predictive value for mortality (SMD: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.58–1.02; OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04–1.17) and neurological function outcomes (SMD: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.50–0.81; OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.17–1.41). NLR also significantly predicted the occurrence of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP) (SMD: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.21–0.87). Subgroup analysis suggested that NLR had good predictive value for mortality in ICH patients aged ≥60 years, with hematoma volume > 15 mL, and NLR cut-off >7.5, and for neurological function in ICH patients, Asian patients, and those with NLR cut-off >7.5. The stability of the results was confirmed by sensitivity analysis. Conclusion NLR can significantly predict mortality, neurological function…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,176 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free