1. Context
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. Literature Search
| Step No. | Query |
|---|---|
| #1 | “neutrophil” [Title/Abstract] |
| #2 | "lymphocyte"[Title/Abstract] |
| #3 | "NLR"[Title/Abstract] |
| #4 | “asthma” [Title/Abstract] |
| #5 | "asthma "[Mesh] |
| #6 | #1 AND #2 |
| #7 | #3 OR #6 |
| #8 | #4 OR #5 |
| #9 | #7 AND #8 |
Abbreviation: MeSH, medical subject headings.
a This table provides details on how the literature was searched in various databases.
3.2. Study Selection
3.3. Data Extraction
3.4. Quality Assessment
| Author | Year | Nation | NOWS Score | Total Number | Gender Ratio (M: F) | Age (y) | NLR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asthma Group | Healthy Group | Asthma Group | Healthy Group | Asthma Group | Healthy Group | Asthma Group | Healthy Group | ||||
| Beyhan S. (10) | 2020 | Turkey | 8 | 80 | 22 | 57: 23 | 7: 15 | 41.5 ± 11.6 | 42.0 ± 10.5 | 1.8 ± 1.5 | 1.8 ± 1.85 |
| Dogru M. (11) | 2016 | Turkey | 6 | 469 | 170 | 266: 203 | 90: 80 | 8.58 ± 3.25 | 8.71 ± 3.03 | 2.07 ± 1.41 | 1.77 ± 1.71 |
| Hendy R. M. (12) | 2019 | Egypt | 8 | 45 | 45 | 20: 25 | 16: 29 | 37.82 ± 14.54 | 33.07 ± 10.89 | 2.77 ± 1.87 | 1.4 ± 0.52 |
| Nacaroglu H. T. (13) | 2016 | Turkey | 7 | 54 | 94 | 27: 27 | 47: 47 | 10 ± 3 | NA | 2.4 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 1.2 |
| Shi G. (14) | 2017 | Chinese | 6 | 175 | 130 | 60: 115 | 40: 90 | 47.94 ± 12.63 | 49.51 ± 13.58 | 1.99 ± 1.15 | 1.68 ± 0.51 |
| Yildiz E. (15) | 2020 | Turkey | 6 | 150 | 150 | 80: 70 | 78: 72 | 35 ± 3.1 | 38 ± 2.5 | 2.8 ± 1.4 | 1.7 ± 0.5 |
Abbreviations: NOW score, the score of Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; NA, not applicable.
a Values are expressed as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.
3.5. Statistical Analysis
3.6. Grouping Description
4. Results
4.1. Study Characteristics
4.2. Heterogeneity Test
4.3. The Mean Difference
Forest plots showing the mean difference with corresponding 95%. Confidence intervals (CIs) for NLR in asthma and healthy group in each study. Overall analysis, including six articles. Subgroup 1 included four studies with included adults cases, and subgroup 2 included children as cases. Subgroups 3 and 4 included two subgroups with no obvious heterogeneity, which were generated by excluding each study one by one in order to analyze the heterogeneity of the overall analysis group.


