Skip to main content

Table 1 General characteristics of included studies

From: Diagnostic significance of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Year

Country

Design

Ethnicity

Endometriosis

Healthy control

Other benign tumors

Type

Stage

Cut off point

SN

SP

NOS score

Stage I/II

Stage III/ IV

N

NLR

N

NLR

N

NLR

Type of endometrioma

N

NLR

N

NLR

N

NLR

Cho

2008

South Korea

Retrospective

East Asian

231

2.66 ± 0.34

384

1.99 ± 0.14

145

2.31 ± 0.32

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

2.01

60

60

7

Hua

2013

China

Retrospective

East Asian

197

2.30 ± 0.25

112

1.68 ± 0.14

102

1.93 ± 0.19

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

1.82

58

65

7

Sayan

2013

Turkey

Prospective

Caucasian

50

5.28 ± 2.28

50

5.06 ± 2.87

_

_

_

_

_

_

18

3.41 ± 1.38

32

5.60 ± 2.47

2.19

76

82

6

Yavuzcan

2013

Turkey

Retrospective

Caucasian

61

2.45 ± 1.73

33

2.11 ± 0.86

_

_

Endometrioma

Yes

33

2.40 ± 2.04

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

6

No

28

2.51 ± 1.37

Tokmak

2015

Turkey

Retrospective

Caucasian

467

2.80 ± 2.00

340

1.70 ± 0.50

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

1.9

70

74

8

Li

2016

China

Prospective

East Asian

100

2.43 ± 0.29

100

1.48 ± 0.52

60

1.64 ± 0.65

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

8

Vigano

2017

Italy

Retrospective

Caucasian

_

_

_

_

_

_

Deep lesions

Yes

69

2.17 ± 1.68

45

2.43 ± 2.19

124

2.08 ± 0.95

_

_

_

6

No

145

2.16 ± 1.25

Peritoneal lesions

Yes

58

2.10 ± 0.98

No

145

2.2 ± 1.25

Endometrioma

Yes

98

2.08 ± 1.01

No

145

2.16 ± 1.25

Seckin

2018

Turkey

Retrospective

Caucasian

267

2.30 ± 1.30

235

2.10 ± 1.20

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

8

Kalem

2019

Turkey

Retrospective

Caucasian

128

2.21 ± 0.80

_

_

85

1.66 ± 0.47

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

1.73

67

66

8

Targut

2019

Turkey

Retrospective

Caucasian

121

2.18 ± 0.63

136

1.70 ± 0.59

_

_

_

_

_

_

17

1.90 ± 0.81

104

2.20 ± 0.62

1.60

88

45

7

Tas

2019

Turkey

Retrospective

Caucasian

37

2.47 ± 1.01

40

2.05 ± 0.64

36

5.20 ± 3.68

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

6

Biyik

2020

Turkey

Retrospective

Caucasian

45

1.93 ± 0.78

42

1.84 ± 0.65

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

6

Karadadas

2020

Turkey

Retrospective

Caucasian

71

2.38 ± 0.14

77

2.37 ± 0.14

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

7

Moini

2020

Iran

Retrospective

Caucasian

217

5.50 ± 3.70

104

3.30 ± 2.90

_

_

Deep lesions

Yes

33

4.30 ± 2.90

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

7

No

104

3.30 ± 2.90

Endometrioma

Yes

184

5.70 ± 4.00

No

104

3.30 ± 2.90

Ottolani

2020

Italy

Prospective

Caucasian

324

2.21 ± 0.95

284

2.05 ± 1.50

_

_

Deep lesions

Yes

69

2.12 ± 0.95

85

2.06 ± 0.81

239

2.25 ± 0.99

_

_

_

7

No

255

2.23 ± 0.93

Peritoneal lesions

Yes

41

2.04 ± 0.78

No

283

2.2 ± 0.96

Endometrioma

Yes

41

2.04 ± 0.78

No

110

2.090.88

Chen,T

2021

China

Retrospective

East Asian

137

1.69 ± 0.69

137

1.59 ± 0.47

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

7

Chen,Z

2021

China

Retrospective

East Asian

31

2.22 ± 0.93

95

2.31 ± 1.21

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

6

Kedzia

2021

Poland

Prospective

Caucasian

23

4.79 ± 3.11

10

1.66 ± 1.41

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

6

  1. N Number, NLR Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, NOS Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale