SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Neurol., 20 October 2025

Sec. Neurological Biomarkers

Volume 16 - 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2025.1594258

Prognostic assessment of acute ischemic stroke by systemic immune-inflammatory index: a comprehensive meta-analysis of multidimensional outcomes

    YJ

    Yanhong Jiang 1

    YC

    Yifan Cui 1

    XH

    Xiaojie Hu 2

    JL

    Jiaying Lian 3

    XQ

    Xueying Qin 4

    XW

    Xingchen Wang 1,2*

    XM

    Xuran Ma 1*

  • 1. The Second Clinical Medical College, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China

  • 2. Department of Neurology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China

  • 3. Department of Neurology, Quzhou Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Quzhou, China

  • 4. The First Clinical Medical College, Beijing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China

Article metrics

View details

1

Citations

2,2k

Views

339

Downloads

Abstract

Introduction:

Our study aimed to quantify the predictive ability of the Systemic Immune-inflammatory Index (SII) for predicting the prognosis and multidimensional complications in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. The primary outcome was poor prognosis, and secondary outcomes included mortality, severity, hemorrhagic transformation/symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, stroke-associated pneumonia/poststroke pneumonia, early neurological deterioration, post-stroke depression, progression or recurrence, and other adverse outcomes.

Methods:

We searched 15 databases from their establishment to 13 October 2024 and selected cohort or case-control analyses that analyzed the association of continuous or categorized SII as exposures with the above adverse outcomes of AIS populations.

Results:

The results showed that 78 studies with 40,682 participants were included in meta-analyses. Continuous SII values were significantly higher in poor prognosis groups than in controls (SMD = 248.13, 95% CI: 198.77 to 297.50; p = 0.000). Poor prognosis incidences rose with higher continuous SII values (OR = 1.004, 95% CI: 1.002 to 1.005; p = 0.000). More patients in High SII groups had poor prognosis (RR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.66 to 2.28; p = 0.000). The risk of poor prognosis was higher in the high SII groups, though this was not statistically significant (OR = 1.007, 95% CI: 0.998 to 1.015; p = 0.120).

Discussion:

In conclusion, our study found that continuous SII and high SII were associated with poor prognosis of AIS and various complications. Given the accessibility and low cost of SII, integrating it into prognostic scores merits further research for better clinical choices.

Systematic review registration:

PROSPERO (CRD42024586414), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024586414.

1 Introduction

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS), a prominent form of stroke, ranks as the primary cause of disability and mortality on a global scale (1). Given its high prevalence, there is an urgent need for a simple, accurate, and inexpensive prognostic biomarker to better predict AIS outcomes. Systemic Immune-Inflammatory Index (SII) is an inflammatory indicator calculated as Neutrophil ×Platelets/Lymphocyte, which reflects the balance between the body’s inflammatory response and immune state and the state of coagulation. There were three systematic reviews that reported on SII’s predictive value in the prognosis of AIS, but all were published early and flawed in design, with few included studies (2–4). The purpose of this study was to conduct a thorough literature search and pool data on the prognostic ability of SII for outcomes of AIS, including poor prognosis, mortality, severity, complications like hemorrhagic transformation (HT)/symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP)/poststroke pneumonia (PSP), early neurological deterioration (END), post-stroke depression (PSD), progression/recurrence, and other complications.

2 Materials and methods

There were two researchers who independently conducted the entire process under MOOSE (4), with the review protocol deposited in PROSPERO (CRD42024586414). There were 15 databases searched from their establishment to 13 October 2024: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, EBSCO, Scopus, OVID, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Sinomed, Clinical Trials, WHO-ICTRP, Chictr, and DANS EASY. AIS search subject terms included “Brain Infarction,” “Brain Ischemia,” “Cerebral Arterial Diseases,” “Cerebral Infarction,” “Cerebrovascular Disorders,” “Stroke,” and free terms included 122. SII terms included six terms (Search criteria, strategies, and results as shown in Supplementary material 1).

After eliminating duplicate reports, the remaining studies’ titles and abstracts were screened to assess their appropriateness for inclusion. Subsequently, the previously selected papers were evaluated for eligibility, data obtained, and bias risk evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) using the full text. Another two researchers independently conducted the abovementioned processes, and any disagreements were resolved by consulting a third guide researcher.

Eligible articles were cohort or case–control analyses analyzing the relationship between SII and AIS adverse outcomes, including poor prognosis, mortality, severity, and complications such as HT/sICH, SAP/PSP, END, PSD, progression/recurrence, and others. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1. Population: Patients of AIS and its complications (any diagnostic criteria); 2. Required data: Continuous SII value of poor prognosis/death/mild severity/HT/SAP/END/PSD/progression or recurrence/other complications groups versus the corresponding control groups; sample size of outcomes’ events, adjusted odds ratio (aOR)/adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of outcomes, and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) in High SII groups versus Low SII groups; SII cut-off values and area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. 3. Exclusion criteria were as follows: duplicate publications, obviously incorrect data, mismatched research types, and low quality (NOS ≤ 4) (When studies provided sample sizes of outcomes’ events for high- and low-SII groups, HIGH SII was defined as the highest SII group, and LOW SII was the sum of the other groups. For aOR/aHR or NIHSS data, HIGH SII was defined as the highest SII group, and LOW SII was the lowest SII group).

We assessed the association between SII and AIS adverse outcomes using mean difference (MD), Relative Risk (RR), and pooled aOR/aHR. Using Stata 14.0, we considered a p-value < 0.05 significant, quantified heterogeneity with I2 and p value of Cochran’s Q statistics, applied the random-effects model for high heterogeneity, and checked for bias with funnel plots and Begg/Egger tests.

3 Results

3.1 General results

Literature search and studies included the initial search, which resulted in 1646 total studies, 670 studies that remained to be screened after removing duplicates, and 99 studies that remained for full-text assessment. Finally, 79 studies (1, 5–82) remained to be included in the systematic review, and 78 studies remained to be included in the meta-analysis (1, 5–33, 35–82) except Wang SN 2024 (34). Details of the process are shown in Figure 1. A summary of the main characteristics of the 78 studies is presented in Table 1; the rating of the quality of the evidence by NOS is presented in Table 2.

Figure 1

Flowchart depicting the identification and selection process of studies from English and Chinese databases. Out of 1,646 studies identified, duplicates numbered 976. Titles and abstracts screened amounted to 670, and 571 records were excluded. Ninety-nine reports were sought for retrieval, with 20 full-text articles excluded. Seventy-nine studies were included in qualitative synthesis, and 78 in quantitative synthesis, with one exclusion due to NOS less than four.

The search and screening process.

Table 1

No. References Study design NOS Region Population Type of AIS Entry time Participants (M/F) Age-year (Mean ± SD)/[Median(IQR)] Medical & medication history Blood sampling Followed-up Outcomes
Cohort studies
1 Wang N 2024 (13) R-S 9 China Changhai Hospital of Naval Medical University AIS with IVT 2016.01–2020.12 466 (291/175) 65.5 ①②③⑤⑥ Before IVT (Within 4.5 h of Symptom Onset) 90d ACDE
2 Zhang LL 2024 (15) R-S 9 China the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University AIS with Atherosclerotic Plaque in Responsible Carotid Artery 2020.01–2022.06 202 (147/55) Vulnerable groups 65.13 ± 10.53/Stable groups 64.57 ± 11.28 ①②③④⑮⑱ Within 24 h of Admission 1mos J
3 Wei 2024 (16) R-S 9 China Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University AIS with IVT 2019.03–2021.05 221 (138/83) 68.0 ± 12.1 ①②③④⑤⑥⑮⑯ Before The Bolus of IVT 3mos ABCDE
4 Zhang MK 2024 (32) R-S 9 China Xuan Wu Hospital, affiliated to Capital Medical University AIS with EVT & fDNI 2017.01–2020.04 352 (250/102) DNI groups 60.89 ± 11.63/Non-DNI groups 64.81 ± 11.85 ①②③④⑤⑥ Before EVT 90d J
5 Yang Y 2024 (5) R-S 8 China Beijing Friend-ship Hospital, Capital Medical University AIS with ICA severe stenosis and SAP 2020.1–2023.6 342 (171/171) 65.2 ± 10.2/66.3 ± 11.1 ①②③④⑤⑥⑦⑮⑯⑱⑲ The Next Morning (5:00 a.m.) after Admission 120d BC
6 Cao 2024 (8) R-S 8 China Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University Anterior Circulation AIS-LVO with EVT 2018.12–2022.12 482 (323/159) 65 (56–72) ①②③④⑤⑥⑮⑯ Admission or the first day post-EVT 90d AD
7 Arslan 2024 (6) R-S 7 Turkey Istanbul Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital Critical AIS in ICU 2020–2022 198 (95/103) 70 (56–86) ①②④⑤⑧ NR 28d AB
8 Zhu 2024 (7) R-S 7 China Nantong Third People’s Hospital AIS NOT EVT or IVT 2019.09–2024.02 306 (191/115) FPG groups 68.761 ± 10.763, PPG groups 75.327 ± 8.911 ①②③④⑤⑥⑫⑮⑯⑱ Within 1 h of Admission 30d AG
9 Zhao 2024 (17) R-S 7 China Wuxi People’s Hospital AIS with IVT NR 197 (125/72) FPG 68.18 ± 10.09/PPG 67.69 ± 8.75 ①②⑤ Within 4.5 h of Symptom Onset NR A
10 Guoqing 2024 (18) R-S 7 China People’s Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region AIS with IVT 2021.06–2023.06 122 (65/57) 58 (54, 63) ①② Before The Bolus of IVT 6mos A
11 Ma L 2024 (21) R-S 7 China the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University ACI with IVT 2021.09–2023.09 199 (130/69) 62.96 ± 13.00 ①②⑤⑥⑮⑱ Before IVT 3mos AEG
12 Huang H 2024 (29) R-S 7 China the First People’s Hospital of Suqian Minor Stroke Due to Anterior Circulation AIS-LVO 2021.11–2023.12 132 (85/47) 68 (58–77) ①②③④⑤⑥⑮⑯⑱⑲㉒ 340 (228 ~ 572)Min after Onset 24 h E
13 Misirlioglu 2024 (10) R-S 6 Turkey Gaziosmanpasa Education and Research Hospital AIS 2019.01–2023.06 1,350 (710/640) 64.38 ± 16.43 ①②③④⑤ Within 24 h of Stroke Onset NR B
14 Mengting 2024 (20) R-S 6 China Xishan People’s Hospital of Wuxi ACI with IVT 2022.01–2023.12 174 (111/63) FPG groups 68 (57, 76)/PPG groups74 (66, 81) ①②③④⑤⑥⑮⑱ Before and 24 h after IVT Discharge A
15 Zhouquan 2024 (23) R-S 6 China the Second People’s Hospital of Chengdu AIS with IVT 2022.03–2023.03 213 (125/88) 67.5 ± 20.5 ①②⑤ Admission 3mos A
16 Jiaxiang 2024 (25) R-S 6 China Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital AIS with IVT 2020.01–2022.12 185 (104/81) END groups 80 (70, 84)/Non-END groups 73 (66, 80) ①②③⑤⑥ NR 3mos E
17 Zhang J 2024 (27) R-S 5 China The Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College AIS 2023.01–2023.12 115 (81/34) PIS groups 61.83 ± 10.89/Non-PIS groups 64.06 ± 9.92 ①②④⑤ Within 24 h of Admission 7d J
18 Haimei 2024 (30) R-S 5 China Taizhou People’s Hospital AIS 2022.01–2022.12 259 (159/100) SAP groups 71.00 (61.00, 81.00)/Non-SAP groups 70.00 (58.00, 77.25) ①②④⑤ NR 7d F
19 Lijun 2024 (31) R-S 5 China The First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University AIS 2022.08–2022.12 80 (58/22) 27–84 ①②③④⑥ The Day After Admission 90d G
20(1) Huang SW 2024 (1) (1) R-M 8 China the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University AIS without IVT 2020.1–2020.12 1,268 (835/433) 67 (59–76) ①②④⑤⑥ Within 24 h of Admission 1y ABJ
20(2) Huang SW 2024 (1) (2) R-M 8 China the Third Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University AIS without IVT 2020.1–2020.12 536 (341/195) 69 (60–78) ①②④⑤⑥ Within 24 h of Admission 1y ABJ
20(3) Huang SW 2024 (1) (3) R-M 8 China Both AIS without IVT 2020.1–2020.12 650 (391/259) 75.00 (68.00–81.00) ①②④⑤⑥ Within 24 h of Admission 1y ABJ
21 Lee 2024 (12) P-S 8 Korea Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine AIS 2019.01–2021.12 697 (405/292) 4 SII groups:69.4 ± 13.3/67.1 ± 13.1/68.8 ± 13.8/71.4 ± 14.1 ①②⑤⑨⑩⑭⑰⑱⑲ Within 1 h after Admission 7d ACEI
22 Cheng 2024 (9) P-S 8 China the First People’s Hospital of Yancheng AIS 2022.01–2023.03 332 (203/129) 68 (58–76) ①②④⑤⑬ The Next Morning 3mos J
23 Hao 2024 (11) P-S 7 China People’s Hospital of Zhengzhou University AIS with IVT 2020.01–2022.08 121 (78/43) 63.8 ± 12.9 ①②④⑥⑬⑲⑳ Within 24 h after Ischemic Stroke Onset Discharge J
24 Chen GJ 2024 (14) P-M 8 China 111 hospitals(Clinical trials NCT03370939) AIS with EVT 2017.11–2019.03 1,002 (660/342) 65 (55–72) ①②④⑤ The First Test on Admission & before EVT 90d AC
25 Fernández-Garza 2023 (35) R-S 9 Mexico University Hospital “Dr. José Eleuterio González” AIS 2018.01–2019.06 145 (97/48) 61.5 ± 12.75 ①②③⑥⑲ Within 24 h of Admission 90d AG
26 Ma 2023 (37) R-S 9 China Jiangsu Province Hospital of Chinese Medicine AIS with IVT 2019.09–2022.12 190 (122/68) 70.389 ± 11.675 ①②④⑤⑥⑮⑯⑱㉒㉓ Within 24 h of Admission 3mos ABI
27 Zhao 2023 (38) R-S 8 China Hebei general hospital AIS with IVT 2017.09–2022.08 281 (168/113) 66 (56–73) ①②③④⑤⑥ Before IVT 3mos AE
28 Hu 2023 (39) R-S 8 America MIMIC-IV(the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) AIS Admitted to the ICU 2008–2019 463 (221/242) 71.68 ± 16.29 ②④⑦⑧⑩⑪ NR Discharge B
29 Zhang 2023 (40) R-S 8 China Changhai Hospital AIS with EVT 2019.01–2019.12 248 (160/188) 67.19 ± 11.47 ①②③④⑤㉔ On Admission 90 ± 14d F
30 Chu 2023 (41) R-S 8 China Minhang Hospital of Fudan University Mild AIS with IVT 2017.01–2022.05 240 (81/159) 66.00 (60.00–73.35) ①②⑤ Before IVT 3mos A
31 Gao 2023 (54) R-S 8 China Huai’an First People’s Hospital AIS with IVT 2019.07–2022.07 352 (240/112) 66.46 ± 12.00 ①②⑤⑥ The Morning after Admission 36 h D
32 Wang S 2023 (36) R-S 7 China the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University AIS with IVT 2017.01–2022.08 717 (485/232) 68 (58–75) ①②③⑤⑥⑮⑯⑰ NR 3mos A
33 Zhou 2023 (46) R-S 7 China The Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical College AIS 2020.01–2020.12 208 (143/65) 63.3 ± 11.3 ①②③④⑤ Within 24 h of Admission 3mos AC
34 Xiao 2023 (43) R-S 6 China Guangzhou First People’s Hospital AIS with PFO 2021.02–2021.12 100 (78/22) PFO groups 50.48 ± 8.86/Non-PFO groups 54.00 ± 10.30 ①②③ NR NR J
35 Dan-dan 2023 (44) R-S 6 China Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University Elderly AIS with IVT 2019.08–2022.02 347 (228/119) 60–93 (70.12 ± 7.71) ①②⑤⑥ NR 3mos AD
36 Shao 2023 (47) R-S 6 China Lianyungang Second People’s Hospital Acute Lacunar Infarction 2021.01–2022.06 172 (112/60) BG-EPVS mild groups 63.35 ± 11.46/BG-EPVS Moderate-to-Severe groups 69.16 ± 10.13 ①② The Morning after Admission 7d J
37 Wang X 2023 (48) R-S 6 China the First Affiliated Hospital of Shihezi University Medical College AIS with EVT 2019.01–2022.12 682 (481/201) 65.00(55.00, 76.00) ①② NR 90d A
38 Song 2023 (49) R-S 6 China Wafangdian Third Hospital ACI 2021.01–2022.05 310 (200/110) 62.58 ± 10.27 ①②③④⑤ Within 24 h of Admission 1mos HJ
39 Wang YL 2023 (50) R-S 6 China Jianping County Hospital of traditional Chinese medicine ACI with IVT 2021.05–2022.09 100 (40/60) 64.24 ± 9.22 ①②④⑥ NR 3mos A
40 Liu HT 2023 (51) R-S 6 China Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital AIS with AF & IVT 2018.10–2022.11 514 (285/229) AF-S groups 73.2 ± 10.2/Non-AF-S groups 66.1 ± 11.1 ①②④⑤⑥⑮⑯ Before IVT; Morning of The Second Day after Admission 90d ADJ
41 Dong 2023 (53) R-S 6 China Baoji Municipal Central Hospital AIS-LVO with EVT 2017.12–2022.06 219 (122/97) 39–83 (61 ± 9) ①②③④⑤ Immediately after Admission 90d J
42 Huixin 2023 (55) R-S 6 China Xuanwu Hospital ALVOS with EVT 2019.01–2021.01 426 (282/144) 65 (57, 74) ①②③④⑤⑥ Before EVT 90d A
43 Liu YY 2023 (56) R-S 6 China The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University AIS 2021.03–2022.10 22 (NR) NR ①②④⑥⑮⑱ The Morning after Admission 90d A
44 Su 2023 (57) R-S 6 China Nanchong Mental Health Center of Sichuan Province AIS with IVT 2021.01–2022.08 Model 272 (143/129); Verification 112 (54/58) 63.02 ± 11.27 ①④ NR 3mos J
45 Lin 2023 (42) P-S 7 China Shunde Hospital of Southern Medical University AIS 2022.01–2022.09 177 (121/56) FPG groups 63.04 ± 12.26/PPG groups 63.17 ± 13.44 ①②③④⑥㉔ Within 24 h On The Day of Admission 90d AGJ
46 Wang ZT 2023 (52) P-S 7 China the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University AIS with IVT 2020.09–2022.09 324 (219/105) 65 (58, 71) ①②④⑤ Before IVT 90d AE
47 Li 2023 (45) P-S 6 China Xianyang Hospital of Yan’an University Anterior Circulation AIS 2020.10–2022.10 110 (83/27 62.03 ± 10.54 NR Within 24 h 3mos A
48 Zhang 2022 (59) R-S 9 China the First People’s Hospital of Yancheng AIS with Carotid Atherosclerotic Plaque 2020.06–2021.03 131 (98/33) 61.86 ± 12.37 ①②④⑥⑮⑱ Within 24 h of Admission 1mon CJ
49 Liu 2022 (69) R-S 9 China Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital AIS 2020.08–2021.08 266 (160/106) Mild groups 64.2 ± 10.0/Moderate-to-severe groups 66.2 ± 12.1 ①②⑤⑮⑯ Within 24 h after Onset 90d ADG
50 Wu 2022 (61) R-S 8 America MIMIC-IV(the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) AIS 2008–2019 1,181 (600/581) 69.1 ± 15.6 ①②③④⑤⑧⑩⑪⑫⑭⑮⑯㉔ The First Test Results At Icu. 30d&90d B
51 Yang 2022 (64) R-S 8 China West China Hospital AIS-LVO with EVT 2017.01–2021.01 379 (199/180) 71 (58–78) ①②③⑤⑰⑱ Immediately Upon Arrival At The Emergency Room NR CD
52 Li 2022 (58) R-S 7 China Huizhou Central People’s Hospital LAO-AIS after EVT 2020.01–2022.01 173 (118/55) 56.9 ± 8.9 ①②③④⑤ In The Emergency Department Or Within 1D of Admission NR J
53 Wenli Z 2022 (71) R-S 7 China Nanjing Municipal First Hospital Acute Stroke with EVT 2018.01–2020.06 88 (52/36) 67.39 ± 28.21 ①②③⑤ NR 3mos AJ
54 Lin 2022 (63) R-S 6 China NR AIS 2017.01–2019.06 526 (277/249) Definite AF groups 68.08 ± 12.16/Non-AF groups 78.61 ± 9.65 ①②④⑥⑲⑳ During Hospitalization, after Fasting For At Least 12 h Discharge J
55 Zhou 2022 (65) R-S 6 China The Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University AIS 2020.01–2020.12 208 (143/65) 63.3 ± 11.3 ①②③④⑤ Within 24 h 3mos A
56 Ma 2022 (68) R-S 6 China Urumqi Friendship Hospital AIS with IVT 2020.05–2021.08 63 (33/30) 65.0 ± 11.0 NR Before IVT 90d A
57 Laiyun Z 2022 (70) R-S 6 China The Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University Young ACI 2019.03–2021.03 182 (152/30) FPG groups 40.00 (35.00, 44.00)/PPG groups 39.00 (34.00, 43.00) ①② Within 24 h of Admission 3mos AG
58 Chen 2022 (66) R-S 5 China Taiwan Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital AIS 2011.01–2021.04 3,402 (72 IHIS+3,330 OHIS) (1959/1443) IHIS groups 75.3 (65.6–81.9)/OHIS groups 71.8 (61.7–81.5) ①②③④⑤⑥⑦⑩ Emergency Department Arrival/During Acute Attack of Stroke at Ward Discharge AB
59 Adiguzel 2022 (67) R-S 5 Turkey Hacettepe University Neurology Intensive Care and Stroke Unit Severe AIS(NIHSS>10) 2019–2021 205 (85/120) 71 ± 15 ①②⑤⑧⑨⑰㉔ Within The First 12H after Stroke Onset Discharge/3mos ABFJ
60 Ji 2022 (62) R-M 8 China Jinling Hospital & Yijishan Hospital Anterior Circulation LVOS with EVT 2014.01–2018.12/2015.09–2021.07 675 (402/273) 67.1 ± 11.4 ①②⑤ Within The First 24 h after Admission 90d AJ
61 Wang 2022 (60) P-M 8 China 201 hospitals(CNSR-III) AIS NR 9,107 (6343/2764) 61.9 ± 11.1 ①②③④⑤⑥ NR 90d&1y ABI
62 Zhong 2021 (79) R-S 8 China the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University AIS 2017.02–2020.04 238 (131/107) FPG groups 60.47 ± 13.25/PPG groups 68.86 ± 13.19 ①②③④⑤⑥⑧⑲㉔ Within 24 h of Admission 3mos AFG
63 Weng 2021 (75) R-S 8 China the Third Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University AIS with IVT 2016.02–2019.04 216 (136/80) 68.5 (59.25–76) ①②③④⑤⑥ Within 24 h after Admission 3mos ACG
64 Wei 2021 (76) R-S 8 China the General Hospital of the Eastern Theater Command AIS 2017.07–2017.12 116 (87/29) 62.09 ± 12.42 NR AIS groups Admission/Control groups Fasted For More Than 12 h 2y IJ
65 Li LH 2021 (74) R-S 7 China Taiwan Taipei Veterans General Hospital AIS within 3 h 2016.01–2018.12 277 (157/120) 73.2 ± 13.4 ②③④ Emergency Department Arrival 1y J
66 Cheng 2021 (77) R-S 6 China The Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University AIS 2020.01–2020.12 305 (200/105) SAP groups 75.77 ± 10.19//Non-SAP groups 61.68 ± 12.31 ①②③④⑤⑥㉑㉔ Within 24 h of Admission 7d F
67 Yi 2021 (73) R-M 7 Korea Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital & St. Vincent’s Hospital LAO-AIS with ET 2015.01–2020.09 440 (260/180) FPG groups 68.0 (13.4)/PPG groups 72.6 (11.7) ①②③④⑤⑥ On Admission 3mos ACDJ
68 Hu 2021 (72) P-S 9 China the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University AIS 2014–2017 432 (272/151) 62.58 ± 10.27 ①②③④ The Morning after Admission, 05:00–08:00 1mon CHJ
69 Wei 2021 (76) P-S 6 China Affiliated Beijing Shijitan Hospital of Capital Medical University ACI 2018.03–2019.02 220 (137/83) 60 ~ 93 (73.86 ± 8.58) ①②③④⑤⑥⑧ Within 24 h of Admission Discharge F
70 Zhao 2020 (81) R-S 8 China Subei People’s Hospital of Jiangsu Province ACI 2019.01–2019.07 140 (84/56) 68.20 ①②④ Within The First 24 h after Admission. 0.5y A
71 Chu 2020 (82) R-S 6 China Taiwan Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital AIS 2010.05–2020.02 2,543 (1469/1074) 70.8 ± 13.5 ①②③④⑥⑦⑩ Arrival In The Emergency Room At Discharge AJ
72 Ceng 2020 (80) P-S 9 China the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University AIS 2015.01–2017.12 SAP 1155 (NR);3 Month 1,106 (NR);1 Year 1,074 (721/434) Non-SAP groups 59.51 ± 12.30/SAP groups 65.65 ± 13.22 ①②③④⑤⑥ Within 24 h 3mos&1y ABF
Case–control studies
73 Dong 2024 (28) R-S 8 China Baoji Central Hospital AIS 2019.02–2021.02 307 (159/148) PSD groups 59.52 ± 10.04/Non-PSD groups 61.76 ± 9.96 ①②③④⑤ Early Morning after Admission (05:00 ~ 08:00) 30d H
74 Zheng 2024 (33) R-S 6 China The Affiliated Hospital of Putian University Massive Cerebral Infarction within 48 h 2019.01–2021.11 82 (52/30) FPG groups 68 (61.5, 80.5)/PPG groups 70 (57.5, 76) ①②⑤⑥ Within 24 h of Admission Discharge ADFJ
75 Zhou 2024 (19) R-S 6 China Wujin Hospital, Affiliated to Jiangsu University AIS 2020.01–2022.12 238 (161/77) SAP groups 77.57 ± 8.69/Non-SAP groups 76.57 ± 9.36 ①②④ Within 24 h of Admission 7d F
76 Tianlu 2024 (24) R-S 6 China the First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University AIS 2020.01–2023.06 236 (143/93) NR ①②㉑ NR 7d F
77 Yu 2024 (77) R-S 6 China China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University AIS with EVT 2021.01–2023.08 150 (103/47) 68 (59, 72) ①②④⑤⑥ NR NR D
78 Niu 2024 (26) R-S 5 China Lijin County Central Hospital AIS with IVT 2021.07–2023.07 150 (83/67) HT groups 49.63 ± 9.52/Non-HT groups 50.89 ± 9.66 The Next Morning NR D

Characteristics of studies investigating the relationship between SII and AIS.

ACI, Acute Cerebral Infarction; AF, Atrial fibrillation; AF-S, Atrial fibrillation Stroke; AIS, Acute Ischemic Stroke; AIS-LVO, Acute Ischemic Stroke with Large Vessel Occlusion; ALVOS, Acute Large Vessel Occlusive Stroke; BG-EPVS, Basal Ganglia-Enlarged Perivascular Spaces; BG-EPVS, Basal Ganglia Region Enlarged Perivascular Spaces; CNSR-III, China National Stroke Registry III; CSO-EPVS, Central Semi-ovale Region Enlarged Perivascular Spaces; DNI, Delayed Neurological Improvement; END, Early Neurological Deterioration; EVT, Endovascular Treatment; FPE, First Pass Effect; FPG, Favorable Prognosis groups; HT, Hemorrhagic Transformation; ICA, Internal Carotid Artery; IHIS, In-hospital Ischemic Stroke; IS, Ischemic Stroke; LAO-AIS, Large Artery Occlusion-Acute Ischemic Stroke; LAA, Large Artery Atherosclerosis; LVOS, Large-vessel Occlusive Stroke; MCE, Malignant Cerebral Edema; MIMIC-IV, Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV; MT, mechanical thrombectomy; NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; NR, Not Reported; OHIS, Out-of-hospital Ischemic Stroke; PCI, Progressive Cerebral Infarction; PFO, Patent Foramen Ovale; PPG, Poor Prognosis groups; PSCI, Post-stroke Cognitive Impairment; PSD, Post-stroke Depression; PSP, Poststroke Pneumonia; PIS, Progressive Ischemic Stroke; R, Retrospective; SAP, Stroke-Associated Pneumonia; SHS, Stroke-heart Syndrome; SII, Systemic Immune-inflammation Index; sICH, Symptomatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage; IVT, Intravenous Thrombolysis; ICU, Intensive Care Unit; fDNI, Failure of Delayed Neurological Improvement.

R, Retrospective; P, Prospective; S, Single-center; M, Multi-center. M, Male; F, Female; h, hours; d, day; y, year; mon, month; mos, months; w, week.

① Hypertension; ② Diabetes; ③ Dyslipidaemia; ④ Heart Diseases (Coronary Heart Disease/Heart Failure/Myocardial Infarction, etc.); ⑤ Atrial Fibrillation; ⑥ Previous Cerebrovascular Diseases (Stroke/TIA, etc.); ⑦ Kidney Diseases; ⑧ Respiratory Diseases (Asthma/Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, etc.); ⑨ Infections; ⑩ Cancer; ⑪ Dementia; ⑫ Peripheral Arterial Diseases; ⑬ Carotid Diseases (Carotid Plaque/Carotid Atherosclerosis/Carotid Artery Stenosis, etc.); ⑭ Other Diseases; ⑮ Antiplatelets; ⑯ Anticoagulants; ⑰ Antithrombotics; ⑱ Statins; ⑲ IVT; ⑳ EVT; ㉑ Antibiotics; ㉒ Antihypertensive Drugs; ㉓ Hypoglycemic Drugs; ㉔ Other Drugs or Therapies.

A, Poor Prognosis; B, Mortality; C, Admission NIHSS; D, HT/sICH; E, END; F, SAP/PSP; G, AIS Severity; H, PSD; I, Stroke Progression/Recurrence; J, Others.

Table 2

Cohort studies
No. Study Total Selection Comparability Outcome
1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3
Representativeness of the exposed cohort Selection of the non-exposed cohort Ascertainment of exposure Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis Assessment of outcome Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts
1 Yang Y 2024 (5) 8 ☆☆ ×
2 Huang SW 2024 (1) 8 ☆☆ ×
3 Arslan 2024 (6) 7 ×
4 Zhu 2024 (7) 7 ☆☆ × ×
5 Cao 2024 (8) 8 ☆☆ ×
6 Cheng 2024 (9) 8 ☆☆ ×
7 Misirlioglu 2024 (10) 6 × ×
8 Hao 2024 (11) 7 × ☆☆ ×
9 Lee 2024 (12) 8 ☆☆ ×
10 Wang N 2024 (13) 9 ☆☆
11 Chen GJ 2024 (14) 8 × ☆☆
12 Zhang LL 2024 (15) 9 ☆☆
13 Wei 2024 (16) 9 ☆☆
14 Zhao 2024 (17) 7 ×
15 Guoqing 2024 (18) 7 ×
16 Mengting 2024 (20) 6 × ×
17 Zhouquan 2024 (23) 6 × ×
18 Jiaxiang 2024 (25) 6 × ×
19 Ma L 2024 (21) 7 ×
20 Zhang J 2024 (27) 5 × × ×
21 Huang H 2024 (29) 7 ×
22 Haimei 2024 (30) 5 × × ×
23 Lijun 2024 (31) 5 × × ×
24 Zhang MK 2024 (32) 9 ☆☆
25 Lin 2023 (42) 7 ×
26 Xiao 2023 (43) 6 ☆☆ × × ×
27 Dan-dan 2023 (44) 6 × ×
28 Zhou 2023 (46) 7 ×
29 Shao 2023 (47) 6 × ×
30 Wang X 2023 (48) 6 × ×
31 Song 2023 (49) 6 × ×
32 Wang YL 2023 (50) 6 ×
33 Liu HT 2023 (51) 6 c ×
34 Wang ZT 2023 (52) 7 ☆☆ × ×
35 Dong 2023 (53) 6 × ×
36 Gao 2023 (54) 8 ☆☆ ×
37 Huixin 2023 (55) 6 × × ×
38 Liu YY 2023 (56) 6 ×
39 Su 2023 (57) 6 × ×
40 Fernández-Garza 2023 (35) 9 ☆☆
41 Wang S 2023 (36) 7 ×
42 Ma 2023 (37) 9 ☆☆
43 Zhao 2023 (38) 8 ☆☆ ×
44 Hu 2023 (39) 8 ☆☆ ×
45 Zhang 2023 (40) 8
46 Chu 2023 (41) 8
47 Li 2023 (45) 6 × ×
48 Ma 2022 (68) 6 × ×
49 Liu 2022 (69) 9 ☆☆
50 Laiyun Z 2022 (70) 6 × ×
51 Wenli Z 2022 (71) 7 ×
52 Li 2022 (58) 7 ×
53 Zhang 2022 (59) 9 ☆☆
54 Wang 2022 (60) 8 ☆☆ ×
55 Wu 2022 (61) 8 ☆☆ ×
56 Ji 2022 (62) 8 ☆☆ ×
57 Lin 2022 (63) 6 ×
58 Yang 2022 (64) 8 ☆☆ ×
59 Zhou 2022 (65) 6 ×
60 Chen 2022 (66) 5 × × ×
61 Adiguzel 2022 (67) 5 × × ×
62 Wei L 2021 (76) 6 ☆☆ × × ×
63 Cheng 2021 (77) 6 × ×
64 Zhong 2021 (79) 8 ☆☆ ×
65 Hu 2021 (72) 9 ☆☆
66 Yi 2021 (73) 7 ×
67 Li LH 2021 (74) 7 ×
68 Weng 2021 (75) 8 ☆☆ ×
69 Wei-shi 2021 (78) 8 ☆☆ ×
70 Ceng 2020 (80) 9 ☆☆
71 Zhao 2020 (81) 8 ☆☆ ×
72 Chu 2020 (82) 6 × ×
73 Wang SN 2024 (34) 4 × × × ×
Case–control studies
No. Study Total Selection Comparability Exposure
1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3
Adequate case-definition Representativeness of the cases Selection of controls Definition of controls Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis Ascertainment of exposure Same Method of ascertainment for cases and controls Non-response rate
1 Zheng 2024 (33) 6 × ×
2 Zhou 2024 (19) 6 × ×
3 Tianlu 2024 (24) 6 × ×
4 Yu 2024 (77) 6 × ×
5 Niu 2024 (26) 5 × × ×
6 Dong 2024 (28) 8 ☆☆ ×

Quality assessment based on the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS).

*Wang SN 2024 (34) was excluded from the meta-analysis because of low quality (Nos ≤ 4). The meanings of the ☆, ☆☆, and × can be found at the official instruction website of the NOS scale: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.

3.2 Study characteristics

This systematic review and meta-analysis encompassed 40,682 individuals; the sample size ranged from a minimum of 22 (56) to a maximum of 9,107 (60). Not all studies reported the sex distribution and age data, preventing the accurate calculation of these data. Geographically, 68 studies were conducted in China (1, 5, 7–9, 11, 13–33, 36–38, 40–60, 62–65, 68–72, 75–81), 11 studies were conducted in other states or area including Turkey (n = 3) (6, 10, 67), China Taiwan (n = 3) (66, 74, 82), America (n = 2) (61), Korea (n = 2) (12, 73), Mexico (n = 1) (35). Moreover, studies (1, 5–8, 10, 13, 15–33, 35–41, 43, 44, 46–51, 53–59, 61–71, 73–75, 77–79, 81, 82) were retrospective, and 11 studies (9, 11, 12, 14, 42, 45, 52, 60, 72, 76, 80) were prospective. At the same time, 73 studies (5–13, 15–33, 35–59, 61, 63–72, 74–82) were single-center, and 5 studies (1, 14, 60, 62, 73) were multi-center. The number of studies reporting data on outcomes were as follows: poor prognosis (n = 43) (1, 6–8, 12–14, 16–18, 20, 21, 23, 33, 35–38, 41, 42, 44–46, 48, 50–52, 55, 56, 60, 62, 65–71, 73, 75, 79–82), mortality (n = 12) (1, 5, 6, 10, 16, 37, 39, 60, 61, 66, 67, 80), severity (n = 9) (7, 21, 31, 35, 42, 69, 70, 75, 79), HT/sICH (n = 12) (8, 13, 16, 22, 26, 33, 44, 51, 54, 64, 69, 73), END (n = 8) (12, 13, 16, 21, 25, 29, 38, 52), SAP/PSP (n = 10) (19, 24, 30, 33, 40, 67, 76, 77, 79, 80), PSD (n = 3) (28, 49, 72), progression/recurrence (n = 4) (12, 37, 60, 78), admission NIHSS (n = 11) (5, 12–14, 16, 46, 59, 64, 72, 73, 75), and other complications (n = 25) (1, 9, 11, 15, 27, 32, 33, 42, 43, 47, 49, 51, 53, 57–59, 62, 63, 67, 71–74, 78, 82).

3.3 Predictive value of SII for AIS poor prognosis (primary outcome)

3.3.1 Predictive value of continuous SII for AIS poor prognosis

A total of 32 studies (1, 6–8, 14, 16–18, 20, 21, 23, 33, 35–38, 41, 42, 48, 50, 51, 55, 66–71, 73, 79, 81, 82), which included 42 designs and involved 14,915 AIS patients, were included. Among them, 6,198 patients were in the poor prognosis groups, and 8,717 were in the favorable prognosis groups. A total of 16 studies (8, 14, 16, 17, 23, 36, 37, 42, 50, 55, 68–71, 73, 79) with 20 designs adopted the guideline-recommended 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 3–6 as the poor prognostic criterion (83). Ultimately, 26 studies came from China (1, 7, 8, 14, 16–18, 20, 21, 23, 33, 36–38, 41, 42, 48, 50, 51, 55, 68–71, 79, 81), and 6 from other countries and regions (6, 35, 66, 67, 73, 82). In the meantime, 12 studies mentioned IVT (16–18, 20, 21, 23, 36, 38, 41, 50, 51, 68), 6 mentioned EVT (8, 14, 48, 55, 71, 73), and 14 used pure medication therapy (1, 6, 7, 33, 35, 37, 42, 66, 67, 69, 70, 79, 81, 82). I2 = 89.9% > 50%, Q statistics p = 0.000, indicating a high level of heterogeneity among 42 designs. Meta-regression was conducted with effect size (ES) as the dependent variable and the 5 possible sources of heterogeneity (mRS rating, follow-up time, treatment modality, regional distribution, and mRS rating + follow-up time) as independent variables. The meta-regression results showed that for the 5 independent variables, all p-values were > 0.05 (0.444; 0.380; 0.275; 0.745; 0.643), indicating that the heterogeneity was not related to these 5 factors, and the source of heterogeneity needs to be further explored. Random-effects model showed the baseline SII value was significantly higher in poor prognosis groups (SMD = 248.13, 95% CI: 198.77 to 297.50, p = 0.000, Figure 2A), meaning that the SII value of the poor prognosis groups was 248.13 × 109/L higher than that of the favourable prognosis groups significantly. Figure 3A shows the funnel plot was asymmetric, Begg p = 0.319 > 0.05, Egger p = 0.004 < 0.05, indicating a slight publication bias in the 42 designs. After applying the trim-and-fill method, the significance of the overall effect size and the heterogeneity did not change, suggesting that publication bias did not distort the conclusions of this meta-analysis (Figure 3B).

Figure 2

Forest plot with four panels illustrating meta-analysis results. Panel A shows standardized mean differences for mRS ratings over time, with results from multiple studies. Panel B presents odds ratios for various studies. Panel C displays risk ratios for treatment modality and study. Panel D highlights odds ratios over time for mRS ratings, comparing different intervals. Each panel includes study names, confidence intervals, and weights with individual study points and summary diamonds indicating effect sizes.

Forest plots of associations between AIS poor prognosis and SII. (A) Continuous SII value in poor prognosis groups vs. favorable prognosis groups; (B) Pooled OR of continuous SII in predicting poor prognosis; (C) The sample size of poor prognosis patients in high SII groups vs. low SII groups; (D) Pooled OR of high SII in predicting poor prognosis.

Figure 3

Image displaying six funnel plots labeled A to F. Plots A, C, E, and F show funnel plots with pseudo ninety-five percent confidence limits, each with data points and a symmetrical triangular shape indicating standard error versus effect size. Plots B and D are filled funnel plots also with pseudo ninety-five percent confidence limits, showing asymmetrical distribution of data points with filled areas indicating adjustments for potential publication bias. Each plot varies in data spread and axis scales.

Funnel plots and trim-and-fill plots of associations between AIS poor prognosis and SII. (A) Funnel plot-continuous SII value in poor prognosis groups vs. favorable prognosis groups; (B) Trim-and-fill plot-continuous SII value in poor prognosis groups vs. favorable prognosis groups; (C) Funnel plot-pooled OR of continuous SII in predicting poor prognosis; (D) Trim-and-fill plot-pooled OR of continuous SII in predicting poor prognosis; (E) Funnel plot-the sample size of poor prognosis patients in high SII groups vs. low SII groups; (F) Funnel plot-pooled OR of high SII in predicting poor prognosis.

A total of fourteen studies (6, 14, 16–18, 20, 21, 23, 45, 50, 52, 69, 79, 81), with 15 designs, evaluated the aORs of continuous SII in predicting AIS poor prognosis. High heterogeneity was found (I2 = 90.9%, Q-statistic, p = 0.000). Meta-regression indicated that neither follow-up time nor treatment modality was a source of heterogeneity (p = 0.578; 0.489). Figure 2B shows a trend: with an increase in continuous SII, the incidence of poor prognosis may be slightly higher (OR = 1.004, 95% CI: 1.002 to 1.005, p = 0.000). The funnel plot in Figure 3C shows a specific publication bias in the 15 designs (Begg p = 0.020, Egger p = 0.834). The trim-and-fill analysis showed that the number of imputed missing studies was negligible, and the adjusted effect size (OR = 1.003, 95% CI: 1.002 to 1.005, p = 0.000) was almost consistent with the unadjusted one (Figure 3D).

Additionally, 2 studies involved aORs of SII per 1 standard deviation (SD) to predict AIS poor prognosis. Chen GJ 2024 (14) reported aOR = 1.241 (95% CI: 1.051 to 1.465), and Huang SW 2024 (1) reported aOR = 1.191 (95% CI: 1.006 to 1.410), indicating that for every 1 SD increase in SII, the likelihood of a poor prognosis increases in AIS patients.

3.3.2 Predictive value of categorized SII for AIS poor prognosis

A total of 10 studies (12–14, 16, 44–46, 60, 65, 75), with 11 designs, provided data on the sample size of poor/favorable prognosis patients in both high and low SII groups; all criteria of poor prognosis were mRS 3–6. Among 21,719 patients, 5,761 were in high SII groups, and 15,958 were in low SII groups. High heterogeneity was noted (I2 = 92.9%, Q statistics p = 0.000), and meta-regression showed follow-up time, regional distribution, and treatment modality were not sources of heterogeneity (p = 0.590; 0.459; 0.593). Subgroup analysis by treatment modality in Figure 2C revealed less within-group heterogeneity. A random-effects model for all designs indicated RR = 1.95 (95% CI: 1.66 to 2.28, p = 0.000), meaning patients with High SII were 1.95 times more likely to have a poor prognosis significantly. The almost symmetrical funnel plot (Begg p = 0.876, Egger p = 0.134) suggests that there is no expected publication bias, as shown in Figure 3E.

A total of 16 studies (1, 8, 12, 14, 32, 35, 37, 38, 46, 51, 60, 62, 65, 70, 75, 80) with 19 designs reported aORs of categorized SII in predicting poor prognosis. Among them, CAO 2024 (8) with 2 designs was removed as its aOR = 1.000 (95% CI: 1.000 to 1.000) made log-conversion in STATA difficult. The remaining studies had substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 92.8%, Q-statistic p = 0.000). Meta-regression showed that four variables (follow-up time, regional distribution, treatment modality, and mRS rating+follow-up time) were not the source of heterogeneity (p = 0.866; 0.893; 0.710; 0.949 > 0.05). Figure 2D shows that the random-effects model pooled OR = 1.007 (95% CI: 0.998 to 1.015, p = 0.120), indicating a higher but non-significantly poor prognosis risk in the high SII groups compared to the low SII groups. Funnel plots for the 17 designs were symmetrical, and bias tests (Begg p = 0.760, Egger p = 0.833) suggested likely no publication bias in the designs (Figure 3F).

3.4 Predictive value of SII for AIS secondary outcomes (mortality, severity, HT/sICH, END, PSD, progression/recurrence, and other complications)

3.4.1 Continuous SII

  • Continuous SII values were listed in both the death, mild severity, HT/sICH, SAP/PSP, END, PSD, Progression/Recurrence groups, and the corresponding control groups, including 5 (5, 6, 16, 66, 67), 6 (21, 31, 42, 69, 70, 79), 8 (8, 22, 26, 33, 44, 51, 54, 69), 10 (19, 24, 30, 33, 40, 67, 76, 77, 79, 80), 7 (13, 16, 21, 25, 29, 38, 52), and 3 (28, 49, 72), 1 (27) studies. The baseline SII value was significantly higher in the death groups, SMD = [369.889 (95% CI: 274.957 to 464.822), p = 0.000, I2 = 0.0%, Q statistics p = 0.545, fixed, Figure 4A; Begg p = 0.707, Egger p = 0.150, Figure 5A]; mild severity groups SMD = [−366.98 (95% CI: −524.43 to −209.53), p = 0.000, I2 = 87.7%, Q statistics p = 0.000, random, Figure 4D; Begg p = 1.000, Egger p = 0.166, Figure 5D]; HT/sICH groups [Excluding NIU 2024 (26), one design of Gao 2023 (54) and one design of Cao 2024 (8), SMD = 444.540 (95% CI: 377.566 to 511.514), p = 0.000, I2 = 0.0%, Q statistics p = 0.502, fixed, Figure 4F; Begg p = 0.371, Egger p = 0.274, Figure 5E]; SAP/PSP (Excluding Tianlu 2024 (24), SMD = 634.39 (95% CI: 556.60 to 712.18), p = 0.000, I2 = 32.8%, Q statistics p = 0.156, fixed, Figure 4J; Begg p = 0.34, Egger p = 0.311, Figure 5G]; END (Excluding Wang ZT 2023 (52), SMD = 255.72 (95% CI: 186.61 to 324.83), p = 0.000, I2 = 51.1%, Q statistics p = 0.069, fixed, Figure 4L; Begg p = 0.707, Egger p = 0.536, Figure 5H]; PSD SMD = [73.21(95% CI: 59.41 to 87.01), p = 0.000, I2 = 7.2%, Q statistics p = 0.341, fixed, Figure 4P]; Progression/Recurrence groups [Progression/Recurrence groups SII = 557.00 (345.00, 832.88); Non-Progression/Recurrence groups SII = 420.63 (310.58, 546.48), p = 0.011].

  • Adjusted ORs of continuous SII in predicting AIS mortality, mild severity, HT/sICH, SAP/PSP, and END were reported in 2 (6, 16), 5 (7, 21, 42, 69, 79), 4 (22, 26, 54, 69), 4 (19, 24, 77, 79), and 5 (16, 21, 25, 29, 52) studies. Except for severity, the incidence of adverse outcomes could be higher with an increase significantly in continuous SII, Mortality pooled OR = [2.592 (95% CI: 1.046 to 6.421), p = 0.040]; severity pooled OR = [1.001(95% CI: 0.998 to 1.003), p = 0.718, I2 = 88.0%, Q statistics p = 0.000, random, Figure 4E]; HT/sICH pooled OR = [1.001 (95% CI: 0.999 to 1.002), p = 0.000, I2 = 90.2%, Q statistics p = 0.000, random, Figure 4G]; SAP/PSP pooled OR = [1.46 (95% CI: 1.05 to 2.03), p = 0.000, I2 = 74.7%, Q statistics p = 0.008, random, Figure 4K]; END pooled OR = [1.003 (95% CI: 0.999 to 1.008), p = 0.123, I2 = 93.6%, Q statistics p = 0.000, random, Figure 4M].

  • Huang SW 2024 (1) mentioned SII per 1 SD to predict mortality, aHR = 1.195 (95% CI: 1.072 to 1.332), p = 0.001. Yang 2022 (64) mentioned SII per 10 SD to predict HT/sICH, aOR = 1.005 (95% CI: 1.002 to 1.008), p = 0.002.

Figure 4

Forest plot panels labeled A to S, each displaying statistical data such as odds ratios (OR) or risk ratios (RR), confidence intervals, and weights from multiple studies. Plots include study names, effect measures, and heterogeneity statistics, visually represented with horizontal lines and diamonds indicating combined effect sizes.

Forest plots of associations between AIS secondary outcomes and SII. (A) Continuous SII value in death groups vs. survival groups; (B) The sample size of death patients in high SII groups vs. low SII groups; (C) Pooled HR of high SII in predicting mortality; (D) Continuous SII value in mild severity groups vs. mild-moderate severity groups; (E) Pooled OR of continuous SII in predicting severity; (F) Continuous SII value in HT/sICH groups vs. non-HT/sICH groups; (G) Pooled OR of continuous SII in predicting HT/sICH; (H) The sample size of HT/sICH patients in high SII groups vs. low SII groups; (I) Pooled OR of high SII in predicting HT/sICH; (J) Continuous SII value in SAP/PSP groups vs. non-SAP/PSP groups; (K) Pooled OR of continuous SII in predicting SAP/PSP; (L) Continuous SII value in END groups vs. non-END groups; (M) Pooled OR of continuous SII in predicting END; (N) The sample size of END patients in high SII groups vs. low SII groups; (O) Pooled OR of high SII in predicting END; (P) Continuous SII value in PSD groups vs. survival groups; (Q) Pooled OR of high SII in predicting PSD; (R) The sample size of progression/recurrence patients in high SII groups vs. low SII groups; (S) Admission NIHSS in high SII groups vs. low SII groups.

Figure 5

Nine funnel plots labeled A to I display studies' effect sizes against standard errors, each with pseudo ninety-five percent confidence limits. Data points are scattered within triangular confidence intervals, varying across plots.

Funnel plots of associations between AIS poor prognosis and SII. (A) Continuous SII value in death groups vs. survival groups; (B) The sample size of death patients in high SII groups vs. low SII groups; (C) Pooled HR of high SII in predicting mortality; (D) Continuous SII value in mild severity groups vs. mild-moderate severity groups; (E) Continuous SII value in HT/sICH groups vs. non-HT/sICH groups; (F) The sample size of HT/sICH patients in high SII groups vs. low SII groups; (G) Continuous SII value in SAP/PSP groups vs. non-SAP/PSP groups; (H) Continuous SII value in END groups vs. non-END groups; (I) Admission NIHSS in high SII groups vs. low SII groups.

3.4.2 Categorized SII

  • The sample size of death, HT/sICH, END, progression/recurrence patients in both High SII vs. Low SII groups was listed, including 6 (5, 16, 37, 39, 60, 61), 3 (13, 16, 73), 3 (12, 13, 16), 3 (12, 37, 60) studies. The sample size of adverse outcomes patients of high SII groups were significantly higher than low SII groups, death pooled RR = [2.26 (95% CI: 2.01 to 2.55, p = 0.000, I2 = 0%, Q statistics p = 0.649, fixed, Figure 4B; Begg p = 0.076, Egger p = 0.036, Figure 5B]; HT/sICH pooled RR = [1.41 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.88), p = 0.019, I2 = 0.0%, Q statistics p = 0.808, fixed, Figure 4H; Begg p = 0.734, Egger p = 0.601, Figure 5F]; END pooled RR = [2.07 (95% CI: 1.66 to 2.59), p = 0.000, I2 = 0.0%, Q statistics p = 0.402, fixed, Figure 4N]; Progression/Recurrence pooled RR = [1.39 (95% CI: 1.25 to 1.54), p = 0.000, I2 = 0.0%, Q statistics p = 0.490, fixed, Figure 4R].

  • Adjusted ORs of categorized SII in predicting AIS mortality, severity, HT/sICH, SAP/PSP, END, PSD, Progression/Recurrence were reported in 2 (5, 80), 1 (35), 4 (8, 44, 51, 64), 2 (76, 80), 3 (12, 13, 38), 3 (28, 49, 72), and 1 (27) studies. Except for END, the risk of adverse outcomes in high SII groups was significantly higher than in low SII groups, mortality pooled OR = [Ceng 2020 (80) ① 90d: 7.332 (95% CI: 1.608 to 33.419, p = 0.01; ② 1y: 5.15 (95% CI: 1.918 to 13.841), p = 0.001; Yang Y 2024 (5) 4.671(95% CI: 1.379 to 15.826), p = 0.013]; severity pooled OR = [7.462 (95% CI: 1.666 to 33.333), p = 0.009]; HT/sICH pooled OR = [Excluding CAO 2024 (8), 3.04 (95% CI: 0.84 to 8.99), p = 0.000, I2 = 93.4%, Q statistics p = 0.000, random, Figure 4I]; SAP/PSP pooled OR = [Ceng 2020 (80) 6.803 (95% CI: 3.251 to 14.236), p = 0.000; Wei 2021 (76) 0.999 (95% CI: 0.998 to 1.000), p = 0.060], END pooled OR = [1.74(95% CI: 0.82 to 3.68), p = 0.150, I2 = 85.1%, Q statistics p = 0.001, random, Figure 4O]; PSD pooled OR = [2.34 (95% CI: 1.81 to 3.07), p = 0.000, I2 = 0.0%, Q statistics p = 0.891, fixed, Figure 4Q]; Progression/Recurrence pooled OR = [1.003(95% CI: 1.000485 to 1.005), p = 0.017].

  • Adjusted HRs of categorized SII in predicting AIS mortality were reported in 4 studies (1, 39, 60, 61), pooled HR = 2.45 (95% CI: 2.00 to 3.01, p = 0.000, I2 = 0.0%, Q statistics p = 0.954, fixed, Figure 4C; Begg p = 0.707, Egger p = 0.589, Figure 5C).

  • A total of 11 studies (5, 12–14, 16, 46, 59, 64, 72, 73, 75) provided data on the value of Admission NIHSS in both high SII and low SII groups, NIHSS in high SII groups were significantly higher, pooled SMD = 2.365 (95% CI: 1.178 to 3.552, p = 0.003, I2 = 92.94%, Q statistics p = 0.000, random, Figure 4S; Begg p = 0.350, Egger p = 0.242, Figure 5I).

3.5 Other complications

A total of 17 studies (1, 9, 11, 15, 32, 42, 43, 47, 51–53, 57–59, 62, 71, 78) listed continuous/categorized SII aORs/aHRs in other complication groups studied, as shown in Table 3. A total of 13 studies (9–11, 15, 33, 43, 47, 51, 57, 62, 63, 70, 78) listed continuous SII values in other complications groups were studied, as shown in Table 4.

Table 3

No. Study Indicators (continuous SII/HIGH SII) Outcomes aOR/aHR(95% CI)
1 Huang SW 2024 (1) (1) High SII vs. Low SII Functional Dependency 2.894 (1.093, 7.659)
2 Huang SW 2024 (1) (2) High SII vs. Low SII Stroke-associated Infection 2.655 (1.490, 4.731)
3 Cheng 2024 (9) High SII vs. Low SII Post-stroke Cognitive Impairment 10.369 (4.460, 24.107)
4 Liu HT 2023 (51) High SII vs. Low SII Atrial fibrillation Stroke 1.116 (1.024, 1.438)
5 Zhang 2022 (59) (1) High SII vs. Low SII Vulnerable Plaques Presence 2.242 (1.378, 4.024)
6 Zhang 2022 (59) (2) High SII vs. Low SII Ruptured Fibrous Caps 3.462 (2.031, 6.074)
7 Li 2022 (58) High SII vs. Low SII Decompressive craniectomy 3.579 (1.360, 9.422)
8 Zhang LL 2024 (15) (1) Continuous SII Presence of Vulnerability Plaques 5.013 (2.671, 8.472)
9 Zhang LL 2024 (15) (2) Continuous SII Presence of Ulcerative Plaques 5.017 (3.010, 8.023)
10 Hao 2024 (11) Continuous SII Stroke-heart Syndrome 5.089 (1.981, 15.74)
11 Dong 2023 (53) Continuous SII First Pass Effect 0.895 (0.801, 0.971)
12 Wang ZT 2023 (52) Continuous SII Early Neurological Improvement 0.998 (0.997, 0.999)
13 Shao 2023 (47) Continuous SII Basal Ganglia-Enlarged Perivascular Spaces Severity 1.004 (1.001, 1.008)
14 Lin 2023 (42) Continuous SII Good Prognosis (90d/mRS 0–2) 1.000 (0.999, 1.001)
15 Xiao 2023 (43) Continuous SII PatentForamenOvale 0.99 (0.98, 1.01)
16 Su 2023 (57) Continuous SII Vascular Dementia 1.006 (1.002, 1.010)
17 Ji 2022 (62) Continuous SII Malignant Cerebral Edema 1.209 (1.034, 1.413)
18 Wenli Z 2022 (71) Continuous SII Ineffective Recanalization 3.731 (1.641, 10.602)
19 Huang SW 2024 (1) (3) SII (per 1 SD) Functional Dependency 1.224 (1.040, 1.441)
20 Huang SW 2024 (1) (4) SII (per 1 SD) Stroke-associated Infection 1.349 (1.139, 1.598)
21 Zhang MK 2024 (32) SII (per 200 Units) Failure of Delayed Neurological Improvement 1.065 (1.001, 1.132)
22 Wei 2021 (76) continuous SII Favorable Prognosis (Non-cerebrovascular Diseases Recurrence/2y) 1.284 (1.105, 1.493)

Continuous/categorized SII aORs/aHRs in other complications.

Only the effect size of the Wei2021 literature is aHR, and the rest are aORs. As shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 3, four aOR/aHR (95% CI) data are mentioned in the literature by Huang SW (1). (1) represents the aOR/aHR (95% CI) with “High SII vs. Low SII” as the Indicator and “Functional Dependency” as the Outcome. (2) represents the aOR/aHR (95% CI) with “High SII vs. Low SII” as the Indicator and “Stroke-associated Infection” as the Outcome. (3) represents the aOR/aHR (95% CI) with “SII (per 1 SD)” as the Indicator and “Functional Dependency” as the Outcome. (4) represents the aOR/aHR (95% CI) with “SII (per 1 SD)” as the Indicator and “Stroke-associated Infection” as the Outcome.

Table 4

No. Complications Study Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
n SII [M (Q1, Q3]/ ± s n SII [M (Q1, Q3]/ ± s n SII [M(Q1, Q3]/ ± s
1&2 AF-S/Non-AF-S Liu HT 2023 (51) 144 759 (516, 1,549) 370 480 (379, 1,081)
Lin 2022 (63) 173 802.29 (473.08, 1390.30) 353 562.50 (379.73, 1040.33)
3 Plaque: Vulnerable/Stable Zhang LL 2024 (15) 144 684.6 (553.2, 819.7) 58 407.1 (293.4, 601.9)
4 Cerebral Herniation /Non-Cerebral Herniation Zheng 2024 (33) 7 2184.13 (1849.47, 4724.67) 75 1336.41 (833.34, 2242.55)
5 SHS/Non-SHS Hao 2024 (11) 24 1,100 (700, 1,500) 97 500 (400, 800)
6 PFO /Non-PFO Xiao 2023 (43) 50 613.08 ± 202.03 50 411.64 ± 157.81
7 Vascular Dementia /Non-Vascular Dementia Su 2023 (57) 56 579.35 ± 122.32 216 503.46 ± 122.41
8 MCE/Non-MCE Ji 2022 (62) 132 2,460 ± 1,860 543 1,570 ± 1,300
9 PSCI/Non-PSCI Cheng 2024 (9) 193 587.75 (337.42, 988.95) 139 345.66 (248.44, 572.89)
10 BG-EPVS Severity: Mild /Moderate–Severe Shao 2023 (47) 57 466.16 (336.69, 603.12) 115 652.63 (463.75, 903.16)
11 CSO-EPVS Severity: Mild/Moderate–Severe Shao 2023 (47) 100 579.45 (418.36, 775.58) 72 581.75 (391.48, 751.26)
11 Aetiology: Small Vessels/Large Vessels
/Other Etiologies
Misirlioglu 2024 (10) 794 871.04 (650.62, 1102.69) 396 898.17 (565.27, 1165.79) 160 243.34 (142.97, 367.66)
12 Infarct Focus Volume: Small/Medium/Large Laiyun Z 2022 (70) 77 565.13 (369.81, 741.89) 75 696.25 (441.22, 1072.71) 30 1187.28 (730.05, 2251.80)
13 Recurrent Cerebrovascular Disease (Ischemic Stroke/Hemorrhagic Stroke/Transient Ischemic Attack) Wei 2021 (76) 24 1190.65 (439.77, 2290.33) 92 426.35 (311.45, 769.23)

Continuous SII values in other complication groups and the corresponding control groups.

AF-S, Atrial Fibrillation Stroke; SHS, Stroke-heart Syndrome; PFO, patent foramen ovale; MCE, Malignant Cerebral Edema; PSCI, Post-stroke Cognitive Impairment; BG-EPVS, Basal Ganglia-Enlarged Perivascular Spaces; CSO-EPVS, Central Semi-ovale Region Enlarged Perivascular Spaces.

3.6 SII cut-off values and AUC of ROC curves

A total of 51 studies (5, 6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15–21, 24–29, 32, 33, 35–39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49–52, 54, 56, 58, 62, 65, 66, 68–70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82) listed cut-off values, AUC (95% CI), sensitivity, and specificity of ROC curves, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5

No. Study Outcomes AUC (95% CI) SII Cut-off Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%)
1. Poor prognosis
1 Zheng 2024 (33) Poor Prognosis (Discharge) 0.721 (0.561, 0.881) 1,192 92.3 44.9
2 Mengting 2024 (20) Poor Prognosis (Discharge) 0.821 (0.746, 0.896) 753.68 87.2 74.8
3 Chu 2020 (82) Poor Prognosis (Discharge) NR 651 NR NR
4(1) Ma 2022(1) (68) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.714 (0.514, 0.914) 974 75.0 85.7
4(2) Ma 2022(2) (68) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.688 (0.504, 0.871) 695 100 62.5
5(1) Ceng 2020(1) (80) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.612 (NR, NR) 555 68 49.9
6 Zhao 2024 (17) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.779 (0.715, 0.843) NR NR NR
7 Cao 2024 (8) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.633 (0.583, 0.683) 1617.42 60.6 64.1
8 Liu YY 2023 (56) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.848 (0.634, 1.000) 1103.22 NR NR
9 Wang ZT 2023 (52) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.702 (0.642, 0.762) 848.7 62.5 72.3
10 Liu HT 2023 (51) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.701 (0.611, 0.790) 644 85.2 58.9
11 Liu 2022 (69) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.880 (0.836, 0.924) 449.76 83.7 67.3
12 Ma 2023 (37) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.715 (0.546, 0.826) 392.903 87.9 46.5
13 Wang YL 2023 (50) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.880 (0.804, 0.957) 1012.06 90.8 79.2
14 Zhouquan 2024 (23) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.715 (0.6550, 0.776) 868.55 55.7 84.0
15 Yi 2021 (73) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.679 (0.643, 0.745) 853 NR NR
16 Zhou 2023 (46) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.657 (0.572, 0.742) 802.8 70.9 58.2
17 Zhou 2022 (65) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.657 (0.572, 0.742) 802.8 70.9 58.2
18 Laiyun Z 2022 (70) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.789 (0.712, 0.866) 781.4 74.5 74.0
19 Zhao 2023 (38) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.787 (0.731, 0.843) 621.68 71.7 75.4
20 Wang S 2023 (36) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.598 (0.552, 0.645) 582.755 65 53
21 Zhong 2021 (79) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.702 (0.635, 0.769) 580 73.1 69.7
22 Wei 2024 (16) Poor Prognosis (3mos) 0.717 (0.646, 0.788) 504.99 70.9 69.6
23 Ma L 2024 (21) Poor Prognosis (3mos after Discharge) 0.826 (0.755, 0.898) 781.16 96.2 52.5
24 Arslan 2024 (6) Poor Prognosis (28d) 0.645 (0.568, 0.722) 1,146 50.5 78.8
25 Fernández-Garza 2023 (35) Poor Prognosis (30d) 0.634 (0.528, 0.741) 621.161 73.6 51.0
26 Guoqing 2024 (18) Poor Prognosis (6mos) 0.841 (0.759, 0.924) 880.53 63.41 95.06
5(2) Zeng 2020(2) (80) Poor Prognosis (1y) 0.662 (NR, NR) 856.46 43.9 75.5
2. Mortality
1(1) Chen 2022(1) (66) Mortality (Discharge) NR 1,051 NR NR
1(2) Chen 2022(2) (66) Mortality (Discharge) 0.707 (NR, NR) 2,120 50.0 91.4
2 Hu 2023 (39) Mortality (Discharge) 0.65 (0.62, 0.68) NR NR NR
3 Wei 2024 (16) Mortality (3mos) 0.703 (0.582, 0.825) 524.47 78.9 59.9
4(1) Ceng 2020(1) (80) Mortality (3mos) 0.765 (NR, NR) 915.03 70.4 76.6
4(2) Ceng 2020(2) (80) Mortality (1y) 0.725 (NR, NR) 887.25 60.8 75.4
5 Yang Y 2024 (5) Mortality (120d) 0.830 (0.710, 0.949) 666.31 72.7 92.0
3. HT/sICH
1 Niu 2024 (26) HT 0.604 (0.506, 0.701) NR 27.60 43.20
2 Zheng 2024 (33) HT 0.659 (0.541, 0.776) 1721.7914 58.3 71.7
3 Liu 2022 (69) HT 0.857 (0.808, 0.907) 728.03 79.2 82.6
4 Dan-dan 2023 (44) HT 0.784 (0.715, 0.853) 721 73.1 70.5
5 Liu HT 2023 (51) HT 0.82 (0.747, 0.889) 706.3 83.7 53.2
6(1) Gao 2023(1) (54) HT 0.610 (0.535, 0.686) 488.48 69 47
6(2) Gao 2023(2) (54) sICH 0.739 (0.636, 0.842) 846.56 70 77
7 Cao 2024 (8) sICH 0.707 (0.639, 0.776) 1817.83 70 65
8 Wei 2024 (16) sICH 0.517 (0.279, 0.754) NR NR NR
4. END
1 Huang H 2024 (29) END 0.798 (0.709, 0.888) 854.76 80.7 78.2
2 Jiaxiang 2024 (25) END 0.658 (0.558, 0.758) 768.206 63.4 69.4
3 Wang N 2024 (13) END 0.61 (0.54, 0.69) 591.63 58.1 64.6
4 Lee 2024 (12) END 0.702 (0.620, 0.784) 588.9 NR NR
5 Wei 2024 (16) END 0.708 (0.631, 0.785) 504.99 70.7 62.6
6 Zhao 2023 (38) END 0.601 (0.473, 0.730) NR NR NR
7 Wang ZT 2023 (52) END 0.845 (0.772, 0.918) 1,429 71.9 93.5
5. SAP
1 Zhou 2024 (19) SAP 0.807 (0.751, 0.855) 846.55 74.58 79.17
2 Tianlu 2024 (24) SAP 0.723 (0.643, 0.802) 1179.56 62.50 79.44
3 Zhong 2021 (79) SAP 0.742 (0.673, 0.812) 700 73.9 66.9
4 Cheng 2021 (77) SAP 0.843 (0.798, 0.882) 885.05 79.5 85.0
5 Wei L 2021 (76) SAP 0.801 (0.742, 0.852) NR NR NR
6 Ceng 2020 (2) (80) SAP 0.762 (0.736, 0.787) 901.06 68.67 78.00
6. PSD
1 Dong 2024 (28) PSD 0.765 (0.709, 0.820) 478.18 75.7 67.6
2 Song 2023 (49) PSD 0.827 (0.736, 0.918) NR NR NR
3 Hu 2021 (72) PSD 0.579 (0.517, 0.641) 565.7 NR NR
7. Moderate to Severe Disability(mRS3-5)
1 Ceng 2020(1) (80) mRS3-5(90d) 0.557 (NR, NR) 1148.4 26.8 87
2 Ceng 2020(2) (80) mRS3-5(1y) 0.575 (NR, NR) 1179.43 25 88.4
8. AIS Severity
1 Fernández-Garza 2023 (35) AIS Severity 0.693 (0.599, 0.786) 623.723 73.5 67.3
9. Others
1 Shao 2023 (47) Moderate—Severe BG-EPVS 0.717 (0.638, 0.796) 686.35 47.8 91.2
2 Ji 2022 (62) Malignant Cerebral Edema 0.69 (0.66, 0.73) 2,144 55 80
3 Zhang MK 2024 (32) Failure of Delayed Neurological Improvement 0.861 (0.816, 0.907) 696.165 NR NR
4 Wang ZT 2023 (52) Early neurological improvement 0.58 (0.511, 0.648) 639.9 55.8 57.3
5 Li 2022 (58) Decompressive Craniectomy 0.649 (NR, NR) 2505.7 55 75.8
6 Zheng 2024 (33) Cerebral Herniation 0.794 (0.636, 0.953) 1798 85.7 68
7 Xiao 2023 (43) Patent Foramen Ovale 0.777 (0.674, 0.861) 476.4 70 70
8 Zhang LL 2024 (15) Ulcerative Plaque 0.895 (NR, NR) 537.4 93.3 89.2
9 Hao 2024 (11) Stroke-heart Syndrome 0.767 (0.6443, 0.8892) 857 66.67 83.51
10 Zhang J 2024 (27) Progressive Ischemic Stroke 0.656 (0.535, 0.778) 737.624 40.0 92.9
11 Cheng 2024 (9) Post-stroke Cognitive Impairment 0.659 (0.600, 0.717) 676.83 44.6 82.0

SII cut-off values and AUC of ROC curves.

SII, Systemic Immune-inflammation Index; AUC, Area Under the Curve; NR, Not Reported; AIS, Acute Ischemic Stroke; HT, Hemorrhagic Transformation; sICH, Symptomatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage; END, Early Neurological Deterioration; SAP, Stroke-Associated Pneumonia; PSD, Post-stroke Depression; mRS, Modified Rankin Scale; BG-EPVS, Basal Ganglia Region Enlarged Perivascular Spaces; h, hours; d, day; y, year; mos, month(s); w, week.

4 Discussion

In this study, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the link between SII and AIS. A total of 40,682 individuals from 78 studies (1, 5–33, 35–82) were involved in the meta-analysis, while 79 studies (1, 5–82) were included in the systematic review.

The principal findings of this study are as follows: (1) The continuous SII values in poor prognosis, death, moderate–severe severity, HT/sICH, SAP/PSP, END, PSD, Progression/Recurrence groups were significantly higher than those in favorable prognosis, survival, mild severity, non-HT/sICH, non-SAP/PSP, non-END, non-PSD, no-progression/recurrence groups. (2) The incidence of poor prognosis, mortality, moderate–severe severity, HT/sICH, SAP/PSP, and END could be higher with an increase in continuous SII, significantly higher except for the incidence related to severity. (3) The sample size of poor prognosis, death, HT/sICH, END, progression/recurrence patients of high SII groups was significantly higher than that of low SII groups. (4) The risk of mortality, severity, HT/sICH, SAP/PSP, END, PSD, Progression/Recurrence in high SII groups was higher than in low SII groups, significantly higher except for the risks of poor prognosis and END. (5) The Admission NIHSS in AIS patients with high SII groups was significantly higher than in low SII groups.

From a pathophysiological perspective, the body’s immune-inflammatory response is activated following the onset of AIS. SII, a biomarker of systemic immune inflammation, has an elevated SII level that often implies an exacerbated inflammatory response, triggering a cascade of adverse events (84). Inflammatory cells infiltrate the brain tissue, releasing diverse inflammatory factors that disrupt the blood–brain barrier, exacerbate brain edema, and intensify neurological damage (83). Additionally, high SII levels are associated with platelet activation and aggregation, promoting thrombosis, aggravating cerebral ischemia, and influencing AIS prognosis, mortality, severity, END, progression, and recurrence (2–4). Patients in high SII groups are at a significantly higher risk of developing HT (64), likely due to high-SII-induced vascular endothelial damage, increased vascular permeability, and blood component exudation. Patients in High SII groups are also more susceptible to PSD (72), as the inflammatory response interferes with neurotransmitter synthesis, metabolism, and release, leading to an imbalance in neurotransmitters like 5-hydroxytryptamine and dopamine. Moreover, high SII levels, reflecting a perturbed immune-inflammatory state, increase the risk of SAP by reducing the body’s resistance and making it more vulnerable to pulmonary infections (76, 80).

Our study boasts noteworthy strengths. First, given that the concept of the SII was first proposed by Chinese researchers (84), we specifically retrieved several Chinese databases as sources. This effort significantly broadened the scope of our system review. The search strategy we implemented was more sophisticated. For the research on AIS, our search keywords included 6 subject terms and 122 free terms, effectively reducing the probability of missed or inaccurate retrievals. By incorporating studies from more recent years, we broadened the scope further, guaranteeing the inclusion of the latest research findings. Moreover, our analysis encompassed additional outcomes, such as SAP/PSP, END, and PSD, which were integrated into the meta-analysis for the first time, facilitating a more multi-dimensional assessment.

There are several limitations to our study. First, language is a constraint, as we only included literature in Chinese and English, while relevant studies in other languages may contain valuable information, affecting the generalizability and comprehensiveness of the findings. Second, due to the variability of cut-offs of SII used in different studies, we could not determine a consensus on the best cut-off value based on our analysis, which may limit clinical guidance. Third, although we used various methods to assess and deal with heterogeneity, some analysis results still have high heterogeneity, which may affect the accuracy and reliability of pooled effect values, reducing the persuasiveness of the findings. Sources of heterogeneity may include differences in study participants (age, sex, nationality, etc.), differences in study design (prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, and case–control studies), differences in interventions (different treatments, drug use, etc.), differences in SII grouping criteria (time of blood sampling and instruments), and differences in outcome measures (definitions and evaluation tools).

This result suggests that SII levels may represent an important diagnostic and prognostic tool for AIS complications in clinical practice. Monitoring and treatment should be strengthened for patients with higher SII levels, and more active measures should be taken to control the inflammatory response and clotting state. However, the role of SII in predicting poor prognosis, mortality, severity, and a variety of other complications is not fully understood.

In summary, high SII levels are linked to poor AIS prognosis and multiple complications, and SII may function as a cost-effective prognostic biomarker. Evaluating the role of SII in therapeutic decision-making is necessary, as our preliminary results suggest its potential to reflect clinical conditions and assist decision-makers. However, more research, especially large-sample and multi-center studies, is needed to better understand the utility of SII through dynamic monitoring.

Statements

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

YJ: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Investigation. YC: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Data curation. XH: Investigation, Data curation, Supervision, Writing – original draft. JL: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation. XQ: Investigation, Writing – original draft. XW: Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. XM: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. XW was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (Grant Number: ZR2020MH156) and the National Famous Old Chinese Medicine Experts Inheritance Studio Construction Project (Grant Number: National Chinese Medicine Human Education Letter [2022] No. 75).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2025.1594258/full#supplementary-material

References

  • 1.

    Huang S Xie W Gao Y Jin Y Chen Y Zhou G et al . A role for systemic inflammation in stroke-associated infection and the long-term prognosis of acute ischemic stroke: a mediation analysis. Jir. (2024) 17:653345. doi: 10.2147/JIR.S474344

  • 2.

    Han J Yang L Lou Z Zhu Y . Association between systemic immune-inflammation index and systemic inflammation response index and outcomes of acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. (2023) 26:65562. doi: 10.4103/aian.aian_85_23

  • 3.

    Huang Y Yin X Li Z . Association of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and clinical outcomes in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:1090305. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1090305

  • 4.

    Ye Z Hu T Wang J Xiao R Liao X Liu M et al . Systemic immune-inflammation index as a potential biomarker of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. (2022) 9:933913. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.933913

  • 5.

    Yang Y He P Zhang Y . Systemic immune-inflammation index predicts short-term mortality in acute ischemic stroke with severe stenosis of internal carotid artery associated pneumonia. Brain Behav. (2024) 14:e70047. doi: 10.1002/brb3.70047

  • 6.

    Arslan K Sultan Sahin A . Prognostic value of systemic immune-inflammation index and systemic inflammatory response index on functional status and mortality in patients with critical acute ischemic stroke. Tohoku J Exp Med. (2024) 265:91–97. doi: 10.1620/tjem.2024.J094

  • 7.

    Zhu F Wang Z Song J Ji Y . Correlation analysis of inflammatory markers with the short-term prognosis of acute ischaemic stroke. Sci Rep. (2024) 14:17772. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66279-4

  • 8.

    Cao W Song Y Bai X Yang B Li L Wang X et al . Systemic-inflammatory indices and clinical outcomes in patients with anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke undergoing successful endovascular thrombectomy. Heliyon. (2024) 10:e31122. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31122

  • 9.

    Cheng Y Zhu H Liu C Li L Lin F Guo Y et al . Systemic immune-inflammation index upon admission correlates to post-stroke cognitive impairment in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Aging. (2024) 16:881021. doi: 10.18632/aging.205839

  • 10.

    Misirlioglu NF Uzun N Ozen GD Çalik M Altinbilek E Sutasir N et al . The relationship between neutrophil–lymphocyte ratios with nutritional status, risk of nutritional indices, prognostic nutritional indices and morbidity in patients with ischemic stroke. Nutrients. (2024) 16:1225. doi: 10.3390/nu16081225

  • 11.

    Hao X Zhu M Sun Z Li P Meng Q Tan L et al . Systemic immune-inflammation index is associated with cardiac complications following acute ischemic stroke: a retrospective single-center study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. (2024) 241:108285. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108285

  • 12.

    Lee M Lee EJ Kim RO Pyun J Joo B Kwon K et al . Systemic immune-inflammation index as a predictor of early stroke progression/recurrence in acute atherosclerotic ischemic stroke. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. (2024) 238:108182. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108182

  • 13.

    Wang N Wang L Zhang M Deng B Wu T . Correlations of 2 novel inflammation indexes with the risk for early neurological deterioration in acute ischemic stroke patients after intravenous thrombolytic therapy. Neurologist. (2024) 29:14651. doi: 10.1097/NRL.0000000000000557

  • 14.

    Chen G Wang A Zhang X Li Y Xia X Tian X et al . Systemic immune-inflammation response is associated with futile recanalization after endovascular treatment. Neurocrit Care. (2024) 41:16573. doi: 10.1007/s12028-023-01930-y

  • 15.

    Zhang L Xu X Zhang X Jiang S Hui P . Systemic immune-inflammation index is associated with ulcerative plaque in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a single center exploratory study. J Clin Ultrasound. (2024) 52:295304. doi: 10.1002/jcu.23632

  • 16.

    Wei C Xue J Zhou X Xia X Li X . Systemic immune-inflammation index is a prognostic predictor for patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Neurologist. (2024) 29:2230. doi: 10.1097/NRL.0000000000000508

  • 17.

    Zhao KJ Wu XQ . Relationship between peripheral blood inflammation indicators and short-term adverse outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Signa Vitae. (2024) 20:96103. doi: 10.22514/sv.2024.087

  • 18.

    Guoqing B Yan J Amiti D Mingyuan W Fu XU Hongyan LI . Systemic immune-inflammation index, serum amyloid a and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide for predicting prognosis of patients with acute cerebral infarction after thrombolytic therapy. J Chin Pract Diagn Therap. (2024) 38:10238. doi: 10.13507/j.issn.1674-3474.2024.10.009

  • 19.

    Zhou LN Zhang X Li XH . Predictive value of systemic immune inflammation index and neutrophil lymphocyte ratio for acute ischemic stroke associated pneumonia. Syst Med. (2024) 9:47. doi: 10.19368/j.cnki.2096-1782.2024.17.004

  • 20.

    Mengting C Jian H Yunnan LU Xiaohua Z . Study on the value of systemic immune-inflammation index in predicting short-term functional prognosis of patients with a-cute cerebral infarction. Chin J Geriatric Care. (2024) 22:2833. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2671.2024.04.006

  • 21.

    Ma L. Correlation analysis between SII, NAR and short-term prognosis ofPatients with acute cerebral infarction after intravenous thrombolysis. Master Type, Anhui Medical University (2024)

  • 22.

    Yu H. Correlation analysis of NLR, dNLR, PLR, SII and hemorrhagic transformation after EVT in acute ischaemic stroke. Master Type, 吉林大学 (2024). doi: 10.27162/d.cnki.gjlin.2024.002156

  • 23.

    Zhouquan HU Peng J Yong T Baoli XU Shu Z . Efficacy of systemic immune inflammation index and National Institutes of Health stroke scale score on evaluating the short-term prognosis of patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving intravenous thrombolysis. West China Med J. (2024) 39:699704. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.202311160

  • 24.

    Tianlu W Ran W Jing M Lei T . Predictive value of multiple inflammatory markers in stroke-associated pneumonia. Int J Geriatrics. (2024) 45:30813. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7593.2024.03.011

  • 25.

    Jiaxiang Y Xiaoxi LI Jun X Haopeng LI Jun W . Predictive value of hypoperfusion intensity ratio combined with systemic immune-inflammation index for early neurological deterioration after thrombolysis in elderly patients with acute ischemic stroke. Pract Geriatrics. (2024) 38:598602. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-9198.2024.06.013

  • 26.

    Niu FL Gao LH . Influencing factors and predictive value of hemorrhagic transformation of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Doctor. (2024) 9:869. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-2665.2024.05.029

  • 27.

    Zhang J. Research on the predictive value of MHR, NPAR, and SI for the occurrence of progressive ischemic stroke. Master Type, Chengde Medical University (2024). doi: 10.27691/d.cnki.gcdyx.2024.000187

  • 28.

    Dong L Guoliang LI Huijun W Junwen W . Predictive value of systemic immune-inflammatory index on post-stroke depression in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Chin J Stroke. (2024) 19:1906. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5765.2024.02.010

  • 29.

    Huang H Liu ZW Yu ZH Song CJ Li D Han YY . Systemic inflammatory response index, systemic immune-inflammatory index, and CT perfusion imaging parameters predict early neurological deterioration in patients with minor stroke due to anterior circulation large vessel occlusion. Int J Cerebrovasc Dis. (2024) 32:40713. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4165.2024.06.002

  • 30.

    Haimei L Huiying FU Yang B . Predictive value of inflammatory markers on the risk of stroke-associated pneumonia in acute ischemic stroke patients. J Clin Neurol. (2024) 37:914. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1648.2024.01.003

  • 31.

    Lijun W Ping Z Meihua H Jie Y Hongjian S Fang S et al . Relationships between peripheral blood inflammatory markers and acute ischemic stroke. Acad J Naval Med Univ. (2024) 45:17480. doi: 10.16781/j.CN31-2187/R.20230539

  • 32.

    Zhang M Zhao W Wu C Xu J Guo W Ren C et al . Inflammation index in failure of delay functional independence after successful recanalization. Int J Neurosci. (2024) 1:18. doi: 10.1080/00207454.2024.2414280

  • 33.

    Zheng L Lin Z . The relationship between composite inflammatory ratios and complications of massive ischaemic stroke. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. (2024) 34:4349. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2024.04.434

  • 34.

    Wang S.N. Predictive value of inflammatory markers and blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio in progressive cerebral infarction. Master Type, Jilin University (2024). doi: 10.27162/d.cnki.gjlin.2024.004422

  • 35.

    Fernández-Garza LE González-Aquines A Botello-Hernández E Pérez-Vázquez G Cristobal-Niño M Góngora-Rivera F . Segmented neutrophil-to-monocyte ratio and systemic immune-inflammation index associated with the severity and functional prognosis of acute ischemic stroke. Int J Neurosci. (2023) 135:22836. doi: 10.1080/00207454.2023.2294705

  • 36.

    Wang S Zhang L Qi H Zhang F L Fang Q Qiu L . Pan-immune-inflammatory value predicts the 3 months outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients after intravenous thrombolysis. Curr Neurovasc Res. (2023) 20:46471. doi: 10.2174/0115672026276427231024045957

  • 37.

    Ma F Li L Xu L Wu J Zhang A Liao J et al . The relationship between systemic inflammation index, systemic immune-inflammatory index, and inflammatory prognostic index and 90-day outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. J Neuroinflamm. (2023) 20:220. doi: 10.1186/s12974-023-02890-y

  • 38.

    Zhao J Dong L Hui S Lu F Xie Y Chang Y et al . Prognostic values of prothrombin time and inflammation-related parameter in acute ischemic stroke patients after intravenous thrombolysis with rt-PA. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. (2023) 29:1299587750. doi: 10.1177/10760296231198042

  • 39.

    Hu X Liang J Hao W Zhou J Gao Y Gong X et al . Prognostic value of inflammatory markers for in-hospital mortality in intensive care patients with acute ischemic stroke: a retrospective observational study based on MIMIC-IV. Front Neurol. (2023) 14:1174711. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1174711

  • 40.

    Zhang P Chen L Jiang Y Yuan H Zhu X Zhang M et al . Risk factors for and outcomes of poststroke pneumonia in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with mechanical thrombectomy. Front Neurol. (2023) 14:1023475. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1023475

  • 41.

    Chu M Luo Y Wang D Liu Y Wang D Wang Y et al . Systemic inflammation response index predicts 3-month outcome in patients with mild acute ischemic stroke receiving intravenous thrombolysis. Front Neurol. (2023) 14:1095668. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1095668

  • 42.

    Lin J.X. Effect of serum inflammatory cytokines on neurological impairment and prognosis in patients with acute cerebral infarction. Master Type, Southern Medical University (2023). doi: 10.27003/d.cnki.gojyu.2023.001348

  • 43.

    Xiao LJ Wen XJ . Diagnostic value of SIl, NLR and PLR levels in acute ischemic stroke with patent foramen ovale. Guangzhou Med J. (2023) 54:2833. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8535.2023.09.005

  • 44.

    Dan-dan Y Lin-zhi J Li-yan LI De-qin G Lei LI . Value of systemic immune inflammation index in predicting hemorrhage transformation after thrombolysis in elderly patients with stroke. Pract Geriatrics. (2023) 37:78993. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-9198.2023.08.009

  • 45.

    Li L. Assessment of serum IL-1β, IL-6, hs-CRP and systemic Immunoinflammatory index (SII) studies on the severity and prognosis of acute ischemic stroke. Master Type, Yanan University (2023). doi: 10.27438/d.cnki.gyadu.2023.000285

  • 46.

    Zhou Y.X. Predictive value of the systemic immune inflammation index for adverse outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Master Type, Guilin Medical University (2023). doi: 10.27806/d.cnki.gglyx.2023.000084

  • 47.

    Shao Y.Y. Study on the relationship between plasma fibrin level, SI and enlargement of perivascular space inpatients with acute lacunar infarction. Master Type, Bengbu Medical University (2023). doi: 10.26925/d.cnki.gbbyc.2023.000075

  • 48.

    Wang X. A single-center retrospective study of prognostic factors in patients with simple mechanical thrombectomy and remedial stent implantation. Master Type, Shihezi University (2023). doi: 10.27332/d.cnki.gshzu.2023.000515

  • 49.

    Song C. Study on the correlation between systemic immune-inflammation index and post-stroke depression in acute stage of ischemic stroke. Master Type, Jinzhou Medical University (2023). doi: 10.27812/d.cnki.glnyx.2023.000031

  • 50.

    Wang Y.L. The relationship between the neutrophil tolymphocyte ratio and systemic immune inflammation index and prognosis in patients with acute cerebral infarction before intravenous thrombolysis. Master Type, Jinzhou Medical University (2023). doi: 10.27812/d.cnki.glnyx.2023.000115

  • 51.

    Liu H.T. Association of systemic immunoinflammatory index with hemorrhagic transformation and short-term prognosis after intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke with atrial fibrillation. Master Type, Dalian Medical University (2023). doi: 10.26994/d.cnki.gdlyu.2023.000333

  • 52.

    Wang Z.T. Correlation between composite inflammatory indicators and early eurological outcome and prognosis after intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke. Master Type, China Medical University (2023). doi: 10.27652/d.cnki.gzyku.2023.001168

  • 53.

    Dong L Guoliang L Junwen W . Predictive value of the systemic immuno-inflammatory index for the first pass effect of mechanical thrombectomy in acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusions. Chin J Cerebrovasc Dis. (2023) 20:109. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5921.2023.01.002

  • 54.

    Gao J Sun B Zhao WD Chen XY Tian XY . Systemic immune-inflammation index predicts hemorrhagic transformation after intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Int J Cerebrovasc Dis. (2023) 31:949. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4165.2023.02.003

  • 55.

    Huixin S Wei S Xiao W Haiqing S Fei C Xiaoqin H . Influence of inflammatory markers on predicting clinical prognosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke after endovascular treatment. Chin J Cerebrovasc Dis. (2023) 20:38291. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5921.2023.06.004

  • 56.

    Liu Y.Y. Analysis of the sequencing characteristics of T cell receptor library in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Master Type, Zhengzhou University (2023)

  • 57.

    Su HE Shiyu L Yangwei Z Xiaoli DU Haiyan W . Establishment and validation of risk predictive model for vascular dementia in patients with acute cerebral infarction after thrombolytic therapy. Mil Med Joint Logist. (2023) 37:7617. doi: 10.13730/j.issn.2097-2148.2023.09.008

  • 58.

    Li W Zhou Y Zhu G Zeng K Zeng H Chen J et al . Systemic immune inflammatory index is an independent predictor for the requirement of decompressive craniectomy in large artery occlusion acute ischemic stroke patients after mechanical thrombectomy. Front Neurol. (2022) 13:945437. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.945437

  • 59.

    Zhang L Lyu Q Zhou W Li X Ni Q Jiang S et al . High systemic immune-inflammation index is associated with carotid plaque vulnerability: new findings based on carotid ultrasound imaging in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Front Neurol. (2022) 13:959531. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.959531

  • 60.

    Wang N Yang Y Qiu B Gao Y Wang A Xu Q et al . Correlation of the systemic immune-inflammation index with short- and long-term prognosis after acute ischemic stroke. Aging. (2022) 14:656778. doi: 10.18632/aging.204228

  • 61.

    Wu S Shi X Zhou Q Duan X Zhang X Guo H . The association between systemic immune-inflammation index and all-cause mortality in acute ischemic stroke patients: analysis from the MIMIC-IV database. Emerg Med Int. (2022) 2022:110. doi: 10.1155/2022/4156489

  • 62.

    Ji Y Xu X Wu K Sun Y Wang H Guo Y et al . Prognosis of ischemic stroke patients undergoing endovascular Thrombectomy is influenced by systemic inflammatory index through malignant brain edema. Cia. (2022) 17:100112. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S365553

  • 63.

    Lin K Fan F Cai M Yu Y Fu C Ding L et al . Systemic immune inflammation index and system inflammation response index are potential biomarkers of atrial fibrillation among the patients presenting with ischemic stroke. Eur J Med Res. (2022) 27:106. doi: 10.1186/s40001-022-00733-9

  • 64.

    Yang Y Cui T Bai X Wang A Zhang X Wan J et al . Association between systemic immune-inflammation index and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing Endovascular Treatment. Cnr. (2022) 19:8391. doi: 10.2174/1567202619666220406102429

  • 65.

    Zhou Y Li W Xia S Xiang T Tang C Luo J et al . Predictive value of the systemic immune inflammation index for adverse outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Front Neurol. (2022) 13:836595. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.836595

  • 66.

    Chen P Chen G Hsiao C Hsu P Yang F Liu C et al . Comparison of clinical features, immune-inflammatory markers, and outcomes between patients with acute in-hospital and out-of-hospital ischemic stroke. J Inflamm Res. (2022) 15:88195. doi: 10.2147/JIR.S342830

  • 67.

    Adiguzel A Arsava EM Topcuoglu MA . Temporal course of peripheral inflammation markers and indexes following acute ischemic stroke: prediction of mortality, functional outcome, and stroke-associated pneumonia. Neurol Res. (2022) 44:22431. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2021.1975222

  • 68.

    Ma X Yang J Yang XY . The clinical value of system immune inflammation index and fibrinogen to albumin ratio in severity and short-term prognosis of acute ischemic stroke. Int J Lab Med. (2022) 43:263944. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4130.2022.21.017

  • 69.

    Liu Z. Correlation between systemic immune-inflammation index and acute ischemic stroke severity and prognosis. Master Type, Qingdao University (2022). doi: 10.27262/d.cnki.gqdau.2022.001260

  • 70.

    Laiyun Z Jing L Chenghua X . Study on the relationship between systemic immune inflammation index and D-dimer and the severity and prognosis of young acute cerebral infarction patients. J Neurosci Mental Health. (2022) 22:3638. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6574.2022.05.011

  • 71.

    Wenli Z Chuanyang Z Mingyang P Guozhong C Wen SU . Risk factors and nomogram prediction model construction of ineffective recanalization after endovascular treatment in acute stroke. Chongqing Med. (2022) 51:40437. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2022.23.017

  • 72.

    Hu J Wang L Fan K Ren W Wang Q Ruan Y et al . The association between systemic inflammatory markers and post-stroke depression: a prospective stroke cohort. Cia. (2021) 16:12319. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S314131

  • 73.

    Yi HJ Sung JH Lee DH . Systemic inflammation response index and systemic immune-inflammation index are associated with clinical outcomes in patients treated with mechanical Thrombectomy for large artery occlusion. World Neurosurg. (2021) 153:e2829. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.06.113

  • 74.

    Li L Chen C Chang Y Chen Y Lee I How C . Prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune inflammation index in acute ischemic stroke. Medicine. (2021) 100:e26354. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026354

  • 75.

    Weng Y Zeng T Huang H Ren J Wang J Yang C et al . Systemic immune-inflammation index predicts 3-month functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Cia. (2021) 16:87786. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S311047

  • 76.

    Wei L Lili W . Value of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and systemic-immune-inflammation index for diagnosing stroke-associated pneumonia in ACI patients. Chin J Geriatric Heart Brain Vessel Dis. (2021) 23:96871. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-0126.2021.09.019

  • 77.

    Cheng QU Zunsheng Z . Predictive value of systemic immune-inflammation index for stroke-associated pneumonia in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Acta Acad Med Xuzhou. (2021) 41:52833. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-3882.2021.07.011

  • 78.

    Wei-shi W Jia WU Wen-nan N Xiao-yang YU Jun-jun W . Clinical value of blood routine ratio parameters in patients with acute ischemic stroke. J Med Postgraduates. (2021) 34:5949. doi: 10.16571/j.cnki.1008-8199.2021.06.006

  • 79.

    Zhong X. Clinical application of systemic immune InflammatoryIndex in acute ischemic stroke patients. Master Type, Kunming Medical University (2021). doi: 10.27202/d.cnki.gkmyc.2021.000651

  • 80.

    Ceng X. Study of relationship between systemic immune inflammation index and acute stroke-associated pneumonia and stroke. Master Type, Zhengzhou University (2020). doi: 10.27466/d.cnki.gzzdu.2020.004041

  • 81.

    Zhao HN Liu XJ Chen X . Prognostic value of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio and systemic immune inflammation index in patients with acute cerebral infarction. Electron J Gen Stomatol. (2020) 7:657.

  • 82.

    Chu Y Chen P Lin S . Correlation between immune-inflammatory markers and clinical features in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Acta Neurol Taiwanica. (2020) 29:10313.

  • 83.

    Powers WJ Rabinstein AA Ackerson T Adeoye OM Bambakidis NC Becker K et al . Guidelines for the early Management of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 update to the 2018 guidelines for the early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. (2019) 50:e344418. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000211

  • 84.

    Hu B Yang X Xu Y Sun Y Sun C Guo W et al . Systemic immune-inflammation index predicts prognosis of patients after curative resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. (2014) 20:621222. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0442

Summary

Keywords

acute ischemic stroke, systemic immune-inflammatory index, poor prognosis, prognostic biomarker, meta-analysis

Citation

Jiang Y, Cui Y, Hu X, Lian J, Qin X, Wang X and Ma X (2025) Prognostic assessment of acute ischemic stroke by systemic immune-inflammatory index: a comprehensive meta-analysis of multidimensional outcomes. Front. Neurol. 16:1594258. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1594258

Received

08 April 2025

Accepted

29 August 2025

Published

20 October 2025

Volume

16 - 2025

Edited by

Pradeep Kumar, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India

Reviewed by

Murat Mert Atmaca, University of Health Sciences, Türkiye

Yang Liu, Fudan University, China

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Xingchen Wang, Xuran Ma,

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics