IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0305322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Aynaz Mohammadi
  • Mohammad Mohammadi
  • Mostafa Almasi‐Dooghaee
  • Omid Mirmosayyeb

Abstract

Background: The Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) is a clinical indicator of peripheral inflammation that is easily accessible. It is worth noting that the formation of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles has been linked to inflammation and immune dysregulation. The main objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to comprehensively evaluate the existing body of research concerning the NLR in the context of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Method: We conducted a comprehensive online search and included studies that evaluated the NLR in 1) patients with AD or MCI and 2) healthy control (HC) participants. We also pooled mean and standard deviation (SD) data for each group. Results: Ultimately, 12 studies encompassed 1,309 individuals diagnosed with AD with mean NLR levels of 2.68, 1,929 individuals with MCI with mean NLR levels of 2.42, and 2,064 HC with mean NLR levels of 2.06 were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean NLR was 0.59 higher in AD patients compared to HC participants (mean difference (MD) = 0.59 [0.38; 0.80]). Similarly, the mean NLR was higher in AD than MCI patients (MD = 0.23 [0.13; 0.33]). Additionally, the mean NLR was higher in individuals with MCI compared to HC participants (MD = 0.37 [0.22; 0.52]). In the subgroup meta-analysis based on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), AD patients with lower MMSE scores (using a cut-off of 20) exhibited significantly higher mean NLR (3.10 vs. 2.70, with a p-value for subgroup differences

Suggested Citation

  • Aynaz Mohammadi & Mohammad Mohammadi & Mostafa Almasi‐Dooghaee & Omid Mirmosayyeb, 2024. "Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0305322
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0305322
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0305322&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0305322?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0305322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.