ACCRA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

EVALUATION OF NEUTROPHIL-LYMPHOCYTE RATIO AS AN

INFLAMMATORY MARKER IN LOCAL HEALTHCARE SETTING.
By

FOLI BRIGHT ETORNAM

(01241280B)
PURITY MAWULORNAM ATTAH
(01240777B)
BOAKYE FRANCIS KWAME
(01241041B)

RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO

DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENCE,

FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCE,

in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the

AWARD OF BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY (BTECH) DEGREE

In

MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENCE

JANUARY, 2026
 DECLARATION

DECLARATION BY STUDENTS
This project is submitted as part of fulfilment for the award of a BTech in Medical Laboratory
Science. The work is a result of our investigation. All section of the text and results which have
been obtained from other works or sources are fully referenced. We understand that cheating and
plagiarism constitute a breach of Accra Technical University ethics and will be dealt with
accordingly.

We hereby, declare that this research proposal written by us, is as a result of our own original
ideas and have duly acknowledged the works of other scholars.

SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of this research proposal was supervised in
accordance with the guidelines on supervision of project work laid down by Accra Technical
University.

Supervisor’s Signature: …………………….

Date: ……………………………….

Supervisor’s name: Dr. Anafu

i
 ABSTRACT
The role of inflammation is important to a number of acute and chronic illnesses. Therefore,
evaluating this system is critical to medical practice. While several conventional markers of
inflammation exist (e.g., C-reactive protein [CRP] and erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR]),
their costs, availability and turnaround times may present limitations in resource-restricted
healthcare environments. Consequently, the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) derived from
standard full blood count results has been identified as an easy, low-cost measure of systemic
inflammation. This study will determine whether NLR shows promise as an accurate and
clinically relevant marker of inflammation within a local healthcare environment. Specifically,
the objectives of this research are to identify the distribution of NLR values in the study
population; compare NLR values to those of other established markers of inflammation, where
available; and compare NLR values between individuals with and without identifiable
inflammatory conditions. The study will employ a facility-based study design that utilizes both
clinical and laboratory records as its source of data. Statistical methods of analysis will be used
to evaluate the diagnostic utility of NLR. The results of this study will support the application of
NLR as a quick and accessible inflammatory marker in routine clinical practice.

In addition, the study seeks to provide evidence that may enhance the interpretation of full blood
count results beyond routine hematological assessment. By integrating NLR into routine
laboratory reporting, clinicians may be better equipped to make informed decisions regarding
disease severity, prognosis, and the need for further investigations or interventions. This
approach may improve early detection of inflammatory conditions and promote timely clinical
management.

Furthermore, the findings of this study are expected to contribute to local data on inflammatory
markers and support evidence-based practice within the healthcare system. The study may also
serve as a foundation for future research aimed at validating NLR across different disease
conditions and population groups. Ultimately, the integration of NLR into routine clinical use
could strengthen diagnostic efficiency, reduce reliance on costly tests, and improve healthcare
delivery in resource-limited settings.

ii
 Table of Contents
DECLARATION................................................................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................... ii
CHAPTER ONE................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT......................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Research Question........................................................................................................ 2
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1 Main Objectives............................................................................................................ 3
1.3.2 Specific Objectives........................................................................................................ 3
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY...............................................................................................3
1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY...........................................................................................................4
1.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................4
1.7 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS.................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO............................................................................................................................... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 OVERVIEW OF INFLAMMATION...........................................................................................5
2.2 THE INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE AND CLINICAL IMPERATIVE FOR BIOMARKERS................6
2.2.1 Physiology of Systemic Inflammation............................................................................6
2.2.2 Clinical Need for Inflammatory Assessment..................................................................7
2.3 THE NEUTROPHIL-LYMPHOCYTE RATIO (NLR): CONCEPT AND CALCULATION......................7
2.3.1 Neutrophils and Lymphocytes in Inflammation............................................................7
2.3.2 Rationale and Pathophysiological Basis.........................................................................8
2.3.3 Method of Derivation and Practical Advantages...........................................................8
2.4 ESTABLISHED CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF NLR.....................................................................9
2.5 COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF NLR AND TRADITIONAL MARKERS..............................10
2.6 REFERENCE RANGES AND INFLUENCING FACTORS............................................................12
2.7 NLR IN RESOURCE -LIMITED HEALTHCARE CONTEXTS........................................................13
2.8 SUMMARY AND IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCG GAP........................................................14

1
CHAPTER THREE...........................................................................................................................16
METHODOLODY........................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 STUDY DESIGN................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 STUDY AREA....................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 STUDY POPULATION...........................................................................................................16
3.4 SAMPLE SIZE AND DETERMINATION..................................................................................16
3.5 INCLUSION CRITERIA..........................................................................................................17
3.6 EXCLUSION CRITERIA..........................................................................................................17
3.7 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS...........................................................17
3.8 DATA ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................17
3.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION..................................................................................................17
CHAPTER FOUR............................................................................................................................ 18
4.1 EXPECTED OUTCOME.........................................................................................................18
4.2 BUDGET..............................................................................................................................18
4.3 TIMELINE............................................................................................................................19
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................20

2
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Inflammation is a fundamental biological process that serves as a primary defense mechanism

against infections, toxins, and tissue injury. It involves complex interactions between immune
cells, chemical mediators, and vascular changes aimed at restoring tissue homeostasis. While
acute inflammation is protective, persistent or dysregulated inflammation contributes
significantly to the development and progression of numerous diseases, including infectious
diseases, cardiovascular disorders, autoimmune conditions, metabolic syndromes, and
malignancies (Nathan & Ding, 2010; Medzhitov, 2008). Because of its central role in disease
pathology, detecting and monitoring inflammation is crucial in clinical diagnosis, treatment
planning, and patient prognosis.
Traditionally, inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation
rate (ESR), fibrinogen, and various cytokines have been widely used in clinical practice. These
markers are effective, but their measurement often requires specialized assays, additional
reagents, and sometimes sophisticated equipment. In resource-constrained healthcare settings,
these limitations may delay diagnosis or increase the cost of patient care (Pepys & Hirschfield,
2003; Brigden, 1999). This has driven the need for simpler, rapid, and more cost-effective
biomarkers that can reliably indicate systemic inflammation.
The neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR), obtained from routine full blood count (FBC) results,
has emerged as a promising alternative. It represents the balance between neutrophils, which
increase during acute inflammatory responses, and lymphocytes, which tend to decrease during
physiological stress, chronic inflammation, or infection (Zahorec, 2001; Forget et al., 2017). This
dual response makes NLR a sensitive composite marker of inflammatory activity. Because the
FBC is one of the most widely requested and affordable laboratory tests, NLR is particularly
advantageous in low-resource environments.
Evidence from multiple studies supports the relevance of NLR in a wide range of conditions.
Elevated NLR has been linked to disease severity in infections such as sepsis, pneumonia, and
COVID-19; poor outcomes in cardiovascular diseases; metabolic disturbances; autoimmune
disorders; and prognostic factors in various cancers (Imtiaz et al., 2012; Azab et al., 2010; Liu et
al., 2016). Its usefulness extends beyond diagnosis, as NLR can also provide prognostic
information and help clinicians track disease progression or response to therapy. Given its
simplicity, affordability, and growing body of evidence, NLR has become an increasingly
valuable biomarker in clinical medicine. Evaluating the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio as an

1
inflammatory marker is therefore important not only for advancing scientific understanding but
also for improving diagnostic processes, especially in regions where advanced laboratory testing

2
is limited (Bucciarelli et al., 2021; Loonen et al., 2014). Such research can contribute to more
efficient patient care, early detection of disease, and better clinical decision-making.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Inflammation is common in many diseases, yet in many healthcare settings, clinicians lack
simple and affordable markers to detect it early. This becomes a major problem when quick
decisions are needed in acute conditions, but advanced tests such as CRP, ESR and cytokine
assays are costly, require specialized equipment, and are not always readily available in low
resource environments. This affects clinicians and patients who rely on timely diagnosis and
treatment.
The issue becomes more critical when clinicians need to make quick decisions in acute
conditions such as infections, sepsis, metabolic crises and emergency presentation where rapid
inflammatory assessment could guide appropriate interventions. Delaying during these critical
periods often worsen disease severity.
The challenge is particularly significant where healthcare resources are limited and laboratory
capacity is restricted to basic tests like the full blood count (FBC). These places may include
smaller clinics and district hospitals. The lack of accessible inflammatory markers places
clinicians and laboratory professionals in these institution at a disadvantage, increasing the risk
of misdiagnosis or delayed care.
Although the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) can be derived from routines tests, how well it
reflects inflammation locally remains unclear. There is insufficient local data to validate its
reliability, establish normal reference values, or determine its sensitivity and specificity across
different clinical conditions from confidently integrating NLR into routine diagnostic practice.
Therefore, this study seeks to investigate the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as an inflammatory
marker by examining its pattern, relevance, and clinical usefulness within the local healthcare
setting. Addressing this gap may provide a practical, cost-effective tool for improving the early
detection and management of inflammatory conditions.
1.2.1 Research Question
 What is the pattern and distribution of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) within the
study population?
 Does the NLR reliably reflect inflammatory status across various clinical conditions in
the local healthcare setting?
 Are there significant differences in NLR values between individuals with inflammatory
conditions and those without inflammation?
 What is the sensitivity and specificity of NLR as an indicator of systemic inflammation
compared with conventional inflammatory markers?
 Can NLR serve as a simple, rapid, and cost-effective diagnostic tool to support clinical
decision-making in resource-limited environments?

2
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.3.1 Main Objectives

To evaluate the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio as a reliable and clinically relevant inflammatory

marker within the local healthcare setting.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 To determine the distribution and reference patterns of neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio

among individuals within the study population.

 To assess the relationship between neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio and established

inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate
where available.

 To evaluate the ability of neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio to reflect inflammatory status

across different clinical conditions commonly encountered in the local setting.

 To compare neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio values between individuals with inflammatory

conditions and those without inflammation.

 To determine the sensitivity and specificity of neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio in detecting

systemic inflammation in comparison with conventional inflammatory markers.

 To explore the potential of neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio as a rapid, affordable, and

accessible tool for early diagnosis and clinical decision-making in resource-limited
healthcare environments.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

 The study will provide local evidence on the usefulness of the neutrophil–lymphocyte
ratio as an inflammatory marker in routine clinical practice.
 Findings may support clinicians in making timely clinical decisions using readily
available full blood count results.
 The study will promote the use of a cost-effective and accessible inflammatory marker,
especially in resource-limited healthcare settings.
 Local reference patterns for neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio generated from the study may
improve its clinical interpretation.

3
  Results may guide laboratory practice and contribute to more efficient utilization of
existing diagnostic resources.

 The study will serve as a baseline for future research on the diagnostic and prognostic
value of neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio in different clinical conditions.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study focuses on evaluating the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio as an inflammatory marker

among selected participants within the local healthcare setting. It will involve the analysis of full
blood count results to derive NLR values and compare them with established inflammatory
markers such as CRP and ESR where available.

The study will be limited to individuals who meet the inclusion criteria and present with either
inflammatory or non-inflammatory clinical conditions during the study period. It will not
investigate molecular inflammatory markers or advanced immunological assays. The findings
will therefore be applicable mainly to similar healthcare facilities with comparable laboratory
resources.

1.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Possible limitations of this study include limited access to conventional inflammatory markers
such as CRP and ESR for all participants, which may affect comprehensive comparison.
Variations in individual immune responses, underlying conditions, and medication use may also
influence NLR values. The study will be conducted within a specific local healthcare setting,
which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Reliance on routine
laboratory records may result in incomplete clinical or demographic data for some participants.
Additionally, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causality between NLR and
inflammation.

1.7 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS

 Inflammation: A biological response of body tissues to harmful stimuli such as infection

or injury, characterized by immune cell activation.

 Neutrophil–Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR): The ratio obtained by dividing the absolute

neutrophil count by the absolute lymphocyte count from a full blood count.
 Full Blood Count (FBC): A routine laboratory test that measures different components
of blood including red cells, white cells, and platelets.
 Inflammatory Marker: A laboratory parameter used to detect or monitor inflammation
in the body.
 CRP (C-reactive protein): A protein produced by the liver that increases in response to
inflammation.

4
  ESR (Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate): A non-specific test that indirectly measures
the presence of inflammation.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 OVERVIEW OF INFLAMMATION
Inflammation is an important biological response that plays a key role in both the cause of and
progression of many different types of disease, including those that are localized (e.g., infections)
as well as systemic diseases (e.g., sepsis, cardiovascular illness and autoimmune disease). The
assessment of systemic inflammation – that is, the accurate and timely measurement of
inflammation occurring throughout the body – is therefore an essential component of effective
clinical practice, as it assists with the appropriate diagnosis, prognostic assessment, and
therapeutic monitoring of patients (Furman et al., 2019). Well-established laboratory biomarkers,
such as the C-reactive protein (CRP) and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), represent
some of the most commonly used methods for assessing systemic inflammation, however, these
methods are often limited by their cost, technical requirements, and the delayed availability of
results, especially in resource-poor settings (Pepys & Hirschfield, 2003). In response to this
operational gap in the clinical assessment of systemic inflammation, research has identified the
need for accessible, cost-effective and rapid alternatives to CRP and ESR that can be obtained
readily from routinely available clinical data.

The Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) may be a useful tool for assessing inflammation. It
is calculated from a CBC (Complete Blood Count), which has been recently demonstrated as a
quick and reproducible means of evaluating the balance between innate (neutrophils) and
adaptive (lymphocytes) immune systems, both of which can become disrupted by systemic
inflammatory states (Zahorec, 2001). An additional major advantage of NLR is its simplicity, as
it can be measured using only the standard CBC and no other blood draw, reagent, or equipment
necessary, allowing for possible near-patient assessment of the patient's inflammatory condition.
The chapter is a thorough examination of all the research done to date in relation to this research
study. It begins with a discussion on the physiological basis of inflammation, followed by an
examination of why there are clinical needs to measure inflammation. In addition, this section
will include a critical examination of the benefits and shortcomings of conventional
inflammatory markers (labs and others), providing a rationale for the search for low-cost
alternatives. Amongst the largest parts of the chapter will be devoted to the NLR; its
pathophysiological basis, its clinical use for a variety of illnesses, and how it fares compared to
standard lab tests such as C-Reactive Proteins.

The other major point of interest will be the myriads of variables that contribute to the NLR
reference values, as well as how relevant they are in non-industrialized health settings. Overall,
this review will compile the existing body of knowledge, evaluate established evidence, and

5
identify gaps in knowledge—specifically regarding non-industrialized countries such as Ghana
—as they relate to NLR; thus, providing the theoretical and empirical basis for evaluation of the
reliability and clinical significance of NLR as an inflammatory marker in the environment of the
study.

2.2 THE INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE AND CLINICAL IMPERATIVE

FOR BIOMARKERS
2.2.1 Physiology of Systemic Inflammation
Inflammation is the multifaceted, integrated biological reaction (in the tissues of the body) to
injury, including pathogens, damaged or dead cells and any harmful stimulants/toxins.
Inflammation serves as a protective function by removing the original cause of injury, cleaning
up dead cells and tissue, and starting to repair damaged tissue. Both the innate (non-specific) and
adaptive (specific) parts of the immune system are involved in the process of inflammation.
The human body responds to infection through two distinct immune systems. The first acts are
on an innate or non-specific basis. This immune response occurs within minutes to hours after
exposure to an infectious agent.
The innate immune response is characterized by the rapid infiltration of neutrophils and other
phagocytotic cells (cells that eat and destroy antigens) into the region of the body that has been
injured or infected. The neutrophils produce pro-inflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen
species that kill or help to kill microorganisms. This stage is non-specific and is the body's first
warning system that there is an invader in the body (Medzhitov, 2008).
The second immune system is the adaptive or antigen-specific immune response. This immune
response is delayed and occurs over a period of days to weeks after exposure to an infectious
agent. The adaptive immune response is mediated primarily by lymphocytes, which are T-cells
and B-cells, and produces long-term memory cells that allow for long-lasting immunity to a
specific antigen. The adaptive immune response works in synergy with the innate immune
system to resolve inflammation and return the body to homeostasis (Murphy & Weaver, 2016).
Generalized systemic inflammation is the result of localized inflammation that has been
exacerbated. While localized inflammation results from trauma, other factors such as severe
infection or chronic disease may also play a role in causing widespread inflammation across the
body. In that case, the body releases inflammatory mediators into circulation, where they can
induce a number of physiological responses throughout the body (Hotamisligil, 2017).
2.2.2 Clinical Need for Inflammatory Assessment
The assessment of systemic inflammatory markers does not just have academic value; it is
integral to modern clinical practice in numerous arenas:

6
Diagnosed patients: All manner of diagnoses is characterized by inflammatory states; bacterial
infections, autoimmune disorders (rheumatoid arthritis, lupus), and certain conditions causing
vasculitis all manifest as having an inflammatory state. Hence, being able to provide objective
assessments will help to clarify the difference between being in an inflammatory and non-
inflammatory state (for example, there are significant differences between the inflammatory state
caused by osteoarthritis and that caused by rheumatoid arthritis) (Gabay & Kushner, 1999).
Prognostic stratification: There is often a correlation between the degree of inflammatory
response and the extent of disease/injury and the likelihood of successful patient outcomes
(sepsis, acute coronary syndromes (ACS), varying types of cancer). The presence of an
inflammatory response may contribute significantly to the ability to identify the highest risk
patients (Ridker, 2016).
Therapeutic Monitoring: Inflammation-related biomarkers are critical for monitoring responses
to therapies. For example, if a healthcare provider sees a decline in a specific inflammatory
biomarker level, it indicates that the healthcare provider's treatment strategy is successful; if the
biomarker level remains the same or increases, it may indicate that the treatment regimen is
ineffective, or the patient has experienced a relapse or has developed new complications (Furman
et al., 2019). Monitoring inflammatory-related biomarker levels is imperative in managing
patients with long-term inflammatory diseases and chronic infections.
In summary, these three areas (diagnostic, prognostic, and monitoring of therapeutics) clearly
demonstrate that there is a clinical need for validated, affordable, and readily available
biomarkers for inflammation, and this is particularly important in areas where technology or
resources are limited.

2.3 THE NEUTROPHIL-LYMPHOCYTE RATIO (NLR): CONCEPT AND

CALCULATION
2.3.1 Neutrophils and Lymphocytes in Inflammation

Neutrophils are key components of the innate immune system and are among the first cells
recruited to sites of infection or tissue injury during acute inflammation. They play a crucial role
in host defense through phagocytosis, release of antimicrobial enzymes, and generation of
reactive oxygen species. In inflammatory conditions, neutrophil counts often increase in the
peripheral blood, reflecting active immune response and bone marrow stimulation. Studies
conducted in Ghana have shown that elevated neutrophil levels are commonly associated with
infectious and inflammatory diseases, making them useful indicators of acute inflammation in
clinical practice (Asante et al., 2011; Gyamfi et al., 2019).

Lymphocytes, on the other hand, are central to adaptive immunity and are responsible for
immune regulation and memory. During periods of systemic inflammation and physiological
stress, lymphocyte counts often decrease due to redistribution and immune suppression. This
reduction, together with an increase in neutrophils, reflects an imbalance between innate and

7
adaptive immune responses. Research in Ghanaian populations has demonstrated variations in
lymphocyte counts during inflammatory and infectious conditions, supporting their relevance in
assessing immune status. The combined changes in neutrophils and lymphocytes form the basis
for using the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio as a simple marker of systemic inflammation
(Owiredu et al., 2016; Tetteh et al., 2021).

2.3.2 Rationale and Pathophysiological Basis

NLR is calculated from an individual's blood component levels based on number (also called the
"whole blood count") of neutrophils and lymphocytes present in their body at any single time
point. When an individual experiences an inflammatory systemic response to any stimulus
("insult"), there is a parallel increase in the number of neutrophils (neutrophilia), and a matching
decrease in the number of lymphocytes (lymphopenia). Neutrophils respond to the inflammatory
response(s) of stimuli primarily through the actions of stress hormones such as cortisol and/or
through direct action of the inflammatory stimuli. Lymphocytes respond differently to
inflammatory stimuli than do neutrophils; in fact, when inflammation occurs in the body, in
addition to the increase in neutrophils from inflammatory stimuli or cortisol, lymphocytes will
experience a decrease in number due to either or both of two primary mechanisms – (1)
apoptosis (cell death) through the action of inflammatory stimuli and/or cortisol and (2)
movement of lymphocytes from circulation to lymphoid tissues as a result of the action of
cytokines produced by inflammatory stimuli. Thus, NLR acts as an integrated measure of
systemic inflammation and has the ability to be easily measured in circulation from a single
blood sample.
The nanomolar range of NLR, or neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, is often used to quantify the
degree of imbalance and the pathophysiological nature of immune response through neutrophil:
lymphocyte ratio (NLR). Whether due to an increase in neutrophil numbers or a decrease in
lymphocyte counts, a higher-than-normal NLR represents a direction toward or away from the
baseline of immune system activity; therefore, the NLR provides a stable, reliable means of
measuring and quantifying the balance of two distinct but inversely related immune pathways to
yield a single, interpretable value regarding the current level of pro-inflammatory-driven,
neutrophil-induced process and anti-inflammatory-driven, or regulatory, lymphocyte-mediated
process within the human body (Zahorec, 2001).
2.3.3 Method of Derivation and Practical Advantages
Simplicity and accessibility are key benefits of the NLR (Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio). It is
calculated using two components (absolute neutrophil count and absolute lymphocyte count)
obtained from a Complete Blood Count (CBC) with differential (the most commonly ordered
and available laboratory test in the world). Therefore, when calculating NLR, no additional blood
sample is needed as the CBC contains both components needed, thus making it easier for
clinicians to perform this test in clinical practice. As a result of its ease of calculation, the NLR
provides many advantages in the clinical environment, including situations where resources are
limited.

8
The primary purpose of the NLR is to convert existing data from an underused, routinely
performed hematologic test (a CBC) into a potential measurement (biomarker) of global
inflammation, thereby maximizing the clinical value of a single common laboratory test. Upon
receipt of the CBC results, the NLR value can be calculated quickly, allowing the clinician to
make important real-time decisions at the point of care. In addition, since CBC analyzers are
available at most primary and secondary healthcare facilities (especially in low-income settings),
the NLR is a highly accessible and low-cost clinical assessment tool (Gibson & Yang, 2021).
Although established reference ranges will require local validation, the calculation of the NLR is
standardized and objective, reducing inter-observer variability, and increasing the reliability of
the NLR as a simple adjunctive clinical tool.

2.4 ESTABLISHED CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF NLR

The Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio can be used in many fields of medicine to provide evidence of
its usefulness as an excellent marker for inflammation in many different disease states. In
addition to being used as a prognostic tool, diagnostic tool, and a monitoring tool, the
Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio will fulfill the objectives of this study to evaluate the ability of the
Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio to demonstrate inflammation in people with different clinical
conditions and to differentiate persons with inflammatory disease from those without
inflammatory disease.
When examining the fields of critical care and infectious diseases, the NLR is an important
prognostic marker. In general, elevated NLR values present at the time of admission have
correlated to increased disease severity, complication rates, and mortality among patients
diagnosed with sepsis and severe infections. It has been demonstrated that a starting NLR that
exceeds a specified threshold (usually between 7-10), is an independent predictor of mortality in
septic patients. In addition, the NLR is superior to traditional laboratory predictors like C-
reactive protein in predicting mortality (de Jager et al., 2010). This is attributed to the fact that
the NLR provides an acutely measurable ratio of neutrophils, which demonstrates the increased
intensity of neutrophilic activation and the concurrent lymphogenic status that characterize a
very severely ill patient with infection, which corresponds to the typical presentation of a very
severely ill patient with infection. Similarly, in individuals with community-acquired pneumonia,
an increased NLR has been shown to correlate with an increased amount of lung involvement,
increased CURB-65 scores, and increased likelihood of admission to an intensive care unit.
Cardiovascular Medicine has established and validated NLR as a significant prognostic indicator
for risk stratification. In acute coronary syndromes, and myocardial infarction in particular, those
patients with higher NLR have been shown to have larger sized infarcts, decreased left
ventricular function, independent prediction of major adverse cardiac events and have increased
mortality over both the short-term and long-term (Afari and Bhat, 2016). This association of
elevated NLR with systemic inflammation and plate instability leading to thrombosis and
represents the inflammatory burden on the patient's status. As such an elevated NLR is a
surrogate marker for chronic conditions such as stable coronary artery disease and heart failure,
9
where an elevated NLR represents a consistency of low-grade inflammation with a poor
prognosis, indicating continued use of NLR to provide prognostic information beyond acute
disease states.
Cancer has extensively validated and used NLR as a prognostic biomarker. An elevated NLR
prior to treatment has demonstrated the relationship with aggressive tumor biology, advanced
disease stage, and poor survival outcomes in multiple cancers such as colorectal, pancreatic,
lung, and hepatocellular carcinoma (Templeton et al., 2014). This relationship is based on NLR
being an indicator of the systemic inflammatory response of the host to the tumor, thus reflecting
the degree of neutrophilia which causes stimulation of angiogenesis and metastasis as well as the
degree of lymphopenia indicating impaired immune activity to the tumor. Therefore, as a result
of the aforementioned studies, NLR continues to be incorporated into multiple cancer-specific
prognostic scores such as the Glasgow Prognostic Score (modified).
The NLR is a useful marker of disease activity in patients with chronic inflammatory and
autoimmune diseases. For example, NLR has been shown to correlate positively with established
activity scores in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (DAS-28) and positively correlate
with levels of traditional inflammatory markers, such as ESR and CRP (Fu et al., 2017). In
addition, multiple studies have demonstrated that this utility of NLR can be used to monitor
flares of disease activity in patients with SLE and to assess the inflammatory burden of patients
with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), enabling differentiation between active and inactive/
remission states in these patient populations. As such, the demonstrated capacity of NLR to
quantitatively differentiate states of active inflammation from quiescent/nontender/non-inflamed
(non-inflamed) states, in specific disease conditions.
The numerous applications of NLR in clinical settings, including both its prognostic and
diagnostic capabilities, provide a compelling rationale for further investigation into the specific
use of NLR as a biological marker of systemic inflammatory stress within the context of the
Ghanaian health care system, thereby filling a significant void in literature providing context-
specific evidence.

2.5 COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF NLR AND TRADITIONAL

MARKERS
A thorough evaluation of any new blood biomarker must be compared directly to established
“gold standards”. Inflammatory markers (e.g., neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)) must be
compared to traditional markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation
rate (ESR).
Based on the body of literature supporting a significant positive correlation between NLR and
conventional markers of inflammation, it is apparent that the NLR is not only significantly
correlative with the traditional markers of inflammation (e.g., CRP and ESR) but very often
demonstrates equivalent (or superior) diagnostic and prognostic value compared to standard

10
markers, as well as providing unique practical benefits compared to other markers of
inflammation.
There is an abundance of research demonstrating a statistically significant positive correlation
between the NLR and levels of both CRP and ESR in various patient populations with a wide
variety of disease processes characterized by systemic inflammation. This correlation has been
observed in multiple inflammatory states, such as systemic infections, postoperative
inflammation, activity of autoimmune diseases, and cardiovascular events - among many others.
For example, research involving patients with acute appendicitis or acute cholecystitis
demonstrated that patients with an elevated NLR had significant elevations in CRP levels;
moreover, in some circumstances, NLR elevation occurs before CRP elevation - thus providing
an earlier warning for acute systemic inflammation (Yazici et al., 2010). According to studies
conducted with chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, there are
significant correlations between the NLR and both DAS-28 and CRP and ESR levels; therefore,
the NLR is an accurate reflection of systemic inflammatory activity and disease process severity
as measured by traditional inflammatory markers (Fu et al. 2010).
Through measuring different metrics including but not limited to; sensitivity, specificity, and
Area Under the Curve (AUC), of the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses; the
NLR consistently compares favorably to traditional markers, and occasionally yields even better
results than those traditional markers. A systematic review/meta-analysis of studies that assessed
diagnostic accuracy of various methods for distinguishing between bacterial or viral infections in
children found that the sensitivity and specificity of the NLR were competitive with those of
CRP, suggesting that it has potential as an adjunct to help guide antibiotic stewardship decisions
(Liu et al. 2019). In prognostic assessment of patients with cancer or critical illness, the NLR is
often identified as being an independent predictor of mortality and frequently appears to be a
more powerful predictor of mortality than levels of CRP even when CRP is included in the
analysis. For example, in patients with sepsis, the NLR has been shown to be a better predictor of
death than the CRP because it measures both the degree of the innate immune response (the
increase in neutrophils) as well as the resulting suppression of the adaptive immune system (the
decrease in lymphocytes) (de Jager et al., 2010).
The comparative benefit of NLR becomes much more evident when we examine the operational
issues facing health care facilities limited in resources. CRP and ESR provide very specific
biochemical information, however, they require separate assays and are therefore associated with
a higher cost, dedicated equipment, and reagents. This results in a longer turnaround time for
these assays versus NLR. Conversely, NLR is derived from the routinely performed complete
blood count (CBC), which means there is no additional cost associated with performing CBC,
and the results are available virtually immediately. Therefore, NLR is not only an equivalent
inflammatory marker to either CRP or ESR, but is also both an easily accessible and rapid one.
While CRP and ESR will continue to be cornerstone investigations in clinical practice, the
literature supports using NLR as an extremely efficient, rapid, and cost-effective screening tool

11
that may also provide supporting prognostic data. The high degree of correlation and equivalent
diagnostic performance demonstrated by this study support using NLR as a part of clinical
pathways, particularly when cost and speed of delivery are critically important—an outcome that
this study seeks to confirm within the context of a specific local healthcare system.

2.6 REFERENCE RANGES AND INFLUENCING FACTORS

To be used clinically, we should know how to interpret a given biomarker according to its normal
range, as well as what non-pathological factors could affect the biomarker’s value. This is
especially important for the Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), as it is a derived measure
created from its two individual components and therefore can be influenced by individual
variances between those two components. In order to enable accurate establishment of context-
specific reference ranges; determining the distribution of NLR values among an established local
population; and allowing for an appropriate comparison of NLR values between inflammatory
and non-inflammatory individuals is the main objective of this study.
The standard normal range of NLR, which is commonly seen amongst healthy adults, is normally
around 1.0-3.0 with most studies on average falling into the 1.5-2.0 range. However, this is not a
standard range; it varies greatly by sex and age. Many of the studies indicate that individuals in
the older adult groups generally have a higher baseline NLR when compared to individuals in
younger adult age ranges, most likely due to the age-related immunological changes, termed
immunosenescence (which include the relatively decreased number of lymphocytes) (Forget et
al., 2017). While the effect of sex on the differences in NLR has been less consistent, it has been
reported that males tend to have a slightly higher baseline NLR than females. More importantly,
there have been several reported studies showing that there are huge variations between different
ethnic and geographic populations. For example, studies of healthy individuals in some parts of
Europe report mean NLR levels as low as 1.5 while in other Asian populations the mean NLR is
2.2. These large differences indicate that genetics, environment, and lifestyle all play an
important role in baseline immune cell counts and their ratios (Azab et al., 2012). This
information identifies an important gap in research: Specifically, there are no locally validated
reference ranges for the Ghanaian or West African population, which the current study will
address.
The NLR may be falsely elevated due to several factors aside from demographics that may
artificially elevate the NLR and thereby confound the interpretation of NLR. Acute stress
(physical and psychological) through the release of cortisol and catecholamines can cause
neutrophilia and lymphopenia and disturb the NLR from its normal expression in the absence of
inflammation. Several medications such as corticosteroids and chemotherapy agents have a
major effect on leukocyte populations and thus can affect the NLR due to directly altering
leukocyte ratios. Malnutrition, cachexia, and some vitamin deficiencies are also important and
cause lymphopenia thereby producing an artificially elevated NLR. Non-inflammatory
haematologic abnormalities such as benign ethnic neutropenia, which is found in individuals of
African descent and characterised by a lower baseline neutrophil level than people of other
12
ethnicities, may lower the NLR and consequently impact the sensitivity of the NLR (Hsieh et al.,
2017). Therefore, careful patient history and clinical correlation are critical to identify these
underlying issues to allow for a robust evaluation of the NLR so that the elevation of the NLR
reflects true inflammation rather than a pathological or physiological process. By identifying and
controlling these variables in the local study population, the accuracy and clinical value of the
NLR as a diagnostic marker will be enhanced in the healthcare setting of interest.

2.7 NLR IN RESOURCE -LIMITED HEALTHCARE CONTEXTS

The challenges inherent to low resource healthcare delivery systems (financial limitations,
limited lab infrastructure, insufficient trained personnel, and high patient volumes) necessitate
new biomarkers that can be clinically valid and operationally feasible. The Neutrophil-
Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) will move from a research-biomarker to having high practical value as
it relates to the global health mandate of maximizing diagnostic yield from existing limited
resources, supporting this study's aim to determine whether NLR may be a rapid, affordable, and
accessible clinical decision-making tool.
The NLR is well-suited to low-resourced settings because its value derives from the Complete
Blood Count (CBC)—a basic diagnostic test used globally. Simple hematology analyzers or
manual methods for performing a differential count in peripheral clinics and district hospitals in
Sub-Saharan Africa are often some of the first laboratory services available in these locations. In
contrast to specialized testing with CRP or ESR, which require analyzers, reagents, and/or wait
times, the CBC is readily available and used everywhere. As a result, the NLR provides much-
needed inflammatory data with no additional cost due to the use of a pre-established resource,
thereby creating economic incentives in settings with many patients paying for out-of-pocket
expenses and weak health budgets (Gibson and Yang, 2021).
One of the main advantages is how quickly results can be available in addition to being an
inexpensive test. The time it takes to get a result for a CRP or an ESR can delay important
clinical decisions concerning antibiotics, hospitalisation and/or surgery, especially in the
emergency department, out-patient clinics or surgical wards. The NLR can be calculated as soon
as the CBC differential is ready, typically within minutes to an hour. Quick availability of results
helps to identify and treat conditions sooner - such as sepsis, acute abdominal emergencies
and/or severe malaria - all of which are life threatening. In addition, the calculation of the NLR is
uncomplicated and can be conducted by physicians, nurses, or laboratory technicians, so those
performing the testing do not need specialised education beyond general medical/technical
knowledge, making it very useful in the clinical setting.
There is growing evidence to support the usefulness of the NLR as a triaging tool for the
assessment of patients with acute appendicitis or cholecystitis in the emergency departments of
high-burden countries in Africa and Asia as well as for the evaluation of patients with chronic
diseases such as tuberculosis, especially when resources are limited. In cases where CRP testing
isn't available or delayed, the NLR represents a viable option for identifying bacteremia and/or

13
high severity of infection; therefore, research continues to investigate its use as a serial marker
for monitoring inflammatory responses over time at the level of individual patients.
As such, the NLR embodies frugal innovation principles in its use of existing data to create a
cost-effective and timely means of assessing inflammatory markers. The NLR can transform
commonly collected data into useful clinical information that meets the urgent need for
affordable, rapid, and accessible testing of inflammatory markers; however, for these potential
benefits to be realized and applied into daily clinical practice at a specific site (e.g., Ghana), there
must be high-quality, contextually relevant evidence generated. For example, the diagnostic cut-
off (e.g., threshold) values of the NLR must be determined locally, and the diagnostic utility of
the NLR must be validated against existing gold standard diagnostic tests. In addition, guidelines
will need to be established on how to interpret NLR results in the context of local disease
patterns as well as factors that may cause confounding results. This study is intended to close the
gap between the global potential of the NLR and the actual application of the NLR to provide
life-saving care in the local healthcare setting.

2.8 SUMMARY AND IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCG GAP

This review of the literature on inflammation biomarkers has brought together our current level
of knowledge and the changing importance of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR). It
assessed the basis in physiology for systemic inflammation and the need for quantifying systemic
inflammation for clinical use (i.e., for diagnostic and prognostic purposes and to monitor for
treatment effect). It evaluated traditional markers like C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte
sedimentation rate (ESR) and acknowledged that while they are considered the gold standard,
they do have practical issues (e.g., costs, turnaround time, accessibility) in helping to identify
inflammation in certain resource-poor locations. Instead, the NLR is considered a derived marker
that shows the imbalance of innate-versus-adaptive immunity as a result of acute inflammation
(which does not incur an incremental cost to obtain) and can be obtained extremely quickly (in
real time using a standard CBC). Evidence from several branches of medicine (including critical
care, cardiology, oncology, and rheumatology) indicates that the NLR has considerable
diagnostic and prognostic usefulness and often shows strong correlations with traditional
biomarkers and, in some cases, exceeds the prognostic ability of traditional biomarkers.
Meanwhile, because the NLR has zero marginal cost to obtain and is immediately available, it
represents an excellent tool for use in resource-limited settings and is consistent with the
principles of appropriate and equitable diagnostics (also known as frugal diagnostics).
Despite a growing body of evidence supporting the use of a normal leukocyte ratio (NLR) in
clinical practice - such as the ability to diagnose sepsis, infections, inflammatory conditions,
cancers, and more - an in-depth analysis of this evidence has identified a substantial and context-
dependent gap preventing routine implementation of this marker into local clinical practice, such
as my own clinical experience working as an emergency physician in Ghana.

14
The current literature is riddled with references to normal NLR values ranging from 1.0 to 3.0
and predominantly sourced from North America (U.S., Canada), Europe (England, Italy, France,
Germany, Sweden), and Asia (China, Japan, India). It is well understood that an individual’s
baseline leukocyte counts & ratios are influenced by demographic factors (age, gender), as well
as genetic (race), environmental (altitude), and nutritional status; demonstrated through the very
successful establishment of corresponding population-based reference ranges and distributions
for leukocyte counts and their ratios. Unfortunately, there are presently inadequate regionally
validated reference ranges (and distribution patterns; i.e., NLR) for the population of Ghana and
other West African nations. As a result of not having appropriate population-specific data for use
as a benchmark for clinician reference when interpreting NLR values, the clinician cannot
accurately classify or interpret the clinical significance of an NLR value, placing subsequent
diagnostic confidence in jeopardy.
Secondly, there is a lack of direct comparison research within our local health systems to support
the strong correlations seen in international studies (which have shown strong correlations
between NLR and CRP/ESR). Each diagnostic test's performance is determined through its
sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and optimal cut-off points and these
metrics are not the same across different settings because factors like prevalence rate of diseases
locally; the pathogens that most frequently cause illness in our clinical practices; and whether we
are using a comparison test that is equally reliable will change these performance characteristics.
Therefore, the strength of the correlation between different types of markers as well as their
diagnostic accuracy when compared to each other will still need to be established for this
particular context.

Lastly, although the theoretical argument in favour of using NLRs in resource-limited places
makes an appealing argument for their use, this allegation needs to be substantiated through local
implementation research before it can be incorporated into clinical decision algorithms for the
triage, diagnosis, and long-term follow-up of patients with commonly occurring conditions in our
health system (such as; sepsis, pneumonia, post-surgical infections, TB or flares from
autoimmune disease). In addition, when developing this evidence, there must be attention paid to
local conditions for confounding variables relating to laboratory procedures, and the situation
surrounding how patients present themselves at a medical facility.
As a result, the research outlined in this project seeks to fill those gaps. By characterizing the
distribution of NLR within the local study groups and correlating that against known
inflammatory markers where possible, and evaluating both the ability of the NLR to differentiate
between states of inflammation and/or non-inflammation, this study will provide the essential,
specific-to-the-situation data needed. The intent of these findings is to transition the NLR from
being previously considered a potential indicator of inflammation in the literature to being
recognised as a valid and dependable indicator of inflammation through its usage in routine

15
clinical practice by local providers of health care that can optimize patient care in a more timely
and economical manner.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLODY
3.1 STUDY DESIGN

This will be a cross-sectional study designed to evaluate the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio as an

inflammatory marker among selected participants.

3.2 STUDY AREA

The study will be conducted in a selected healthcare facility within the local setting that provides
routine laboratory diagnostic services.

3.3 STUDY POPULATION

The study population will include individuals referred for full blood count analysis during the
study period.

3.4 SAMPLE SIZE AND DETERMINATION

The sample size will be determined using standard statistical formulas based on prevalence
estimates from previous studies.

The sample size will be calculated using the formula for prevalence study.

2
Z . p .(1−p)
n= d2

Where:

n= required sample size

z= standard normal deviate at 95% confidence level (1.96)

p= estimated prevalence of inflammatory patients (since no local data exists, a prevalence of

50% will be assumed to maximize sample size)

16
d= margin of error 0.05

The calculated sample size will be adjusted for 10% non-response rate.

3.5 INCLUSION CRITERIA

 Individuals who consent to participate

 Participants with available full blood count results
 Individuals with or without clinical evidence of inflammation

3.6 EXCLUSION CRITERIA

 Individuals with incomplete laboratory data

 Patients on immunosuppressive therapy
 Individuals with known hematological disorders

3.7 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS

Three (3) to five (5) millimeters (ml) of venous blood samples will be collected under aseptic
conditions into EDTA tubes for full blood count analysis. NLR will be calculated by dividing the
absolute neutrophil count by the absolute lymphocyte count. CRP and ESR results will be
obtained where available.

3.8 DATA ANALYSIS

Data will be analyzed using appropriate statistical software. Descriptive statistics (frequencies,
percentages, means, standard deviations) will be used to summarize NLR distribution. Inferential
statistics will be applied to compare NLR values between groups and determine sensitivity and
specificity.

3.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

Ethical clearance for this research will be sought from both the Research Review Committee of
the Department of Medical Laboratory Technology, Faculty of Applied Sciences at Accra
Technical University, and the Ethics and Research Committee. Additional approvals will be
pursued from the Ghana Health Service Ethical Review Committee. Before participating in the
study, participants will be provided with detailed information, and verbal/oral consent will be
obtained, emphasizing the voluntary nature of their involvement. To uphold confidentiality,
collected data will be handled discreetly and devoid of any personal identifiers. The privacy and

17
confidentiality rights of participants will be rigorously respected, ensuring their dignity and well-
being throughout the study.

All information obtained from participant data sheets and study findings will be meticulously
recorded separately and treated with the utmost confidentiality, in adherence to ethical standards
and regulations

CHAPTER FOUR
4.1 EXPECTED OUTCOME

The study is expected to demonstrate that the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is significantly
higher in individuals with inflammatory conditions compared to those without inflammation.
This finding would support the concept that NLR reflects the balance between innate and
adaptive immune responses and serves as a reliable indicator of systemic inflammation. It is
anticipated that individuals with active inflammatory states, such as infections or chronic
inflammatory diseases, will show a distinct pattern of elevated NLR, while healthy individuals or
those without inflammation will have lower and more stable values.

Additionally, the study is expected to reveal a positive correlation between NLR and
conventional inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte
sedimentation rate (ESR), where available. This correlation would further validate NLR as a
practical and accessible biomarker for assessing inflammation. By confirming this relationship,
the study could provide evidence that NLR can serve as an effective surrogate marker in settings
where conventional inflammatory tests are unavailable or costly.

Finally, the study is expected to highlight the potential of NLR as a rapid, cost-effective, and
widely available tool for clinical decision-making, particularly in resource-limited healthcare
environments. The outcomes may contribute to improved early detection of inflammatory
conditions, better monitoring of disease progression, and timely interventions, ultimately
enhancing patient management and reducing the burden of inflammatory diseases in the local
population.

4.2 BUDGET
The budget will depend on the sample size and laboratory costs. Below is a contextual
breakdown

Budget Item Details Estimated Cost (GhȻ)

Training And Field Work Training of research assistants, 350
Preparation PPE for data collectors
Laboratory Tests Full blood count analysis for 1000
study participants (reagents,

18
 analyzer usage, quality control
materials)
Sample Collection Materials Syringes, EDTA vacutainer 1000
tubes, gloves, alcohol swabs,
cotton wool, disinfectants,
biohazard bags
Personnel Costs Research assistants, lab 1000
technicians or scientists, data
entry clerks
Transportation And Logistics Field visits ample transport, 350
fuel etc
Data Analysis Software Statistical Consultation 150
Miscellaneous Or Contingency Unexpected Costs 150
(10%)
Total Estimated Budget GhȻ 4,000.00

The funding will be personally sourced by group members.

4.3 TIMELINE
Phase Activities Duration
Research proposal review with supervisor and Four weeks
approval, ethical clearance, stakeholder engagement
Month 1 with study facility, recruitment and training of
research assistants, preparation of laboratory and data
extraction tools
Data collection from clinical and laboratory records; Four weeks
Month 2 blood sample collection and full blood count analysis;
calculation of neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio
Data entry, data cleaning, statistical analysis, Four weeks
Month 3 interpretation of results, report writing, and final
submission

In summary, 3 months of timeline will be needed from proposal defense to get final report.

19
 REFERENCES
Azab, B., Bhatt, V. R., Phookan, J., Murukutla, S., Kohn, N., Terjanian, T., & Widmann, W. D.
(2010). Usefulness of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in predicting short- and long-term
mortality in breast cancer patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 17(1), 217–224.
[Link]

Brigden, M. L. (1999). Clinical utility of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. American Family
Physician, 60(5), 1443–1450.

Bucciarelli, V., Caterino, A. L., Bianco, F., Caputi, C. G., Salerni, S., Sciomer, S., Maffei, S., &
Gallina, S. (2021). Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio: An emerging marker of cardiovascular risk.
International Journal of Cardiology, 332, 198–203. [Link]

Forget, P., Khalifa, C., Defour, J. P., Latinne, D., Van Pel, M. C., & De Kock, M. (2017). What
is the normal value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio? BMC Research Notes, 10, 12.
[Link]

Imtiaz, F., Shafique, K., Mirza, S. S., Ayoob, Z., Vart, P., & Rao, S. (2012). Neutrophil-
lymphocyte ratio as a measure of systemic inflammation in prevalent chronic diseases in Asian
population. International Archives of Medicine, 5(1), 2. [Link]

Liu, Y., Du, X., Chen, J., Jin, Y., Peng, L., Wang, H. H. X., Luo, M., Chen, L., & Zhao, Y.
(2016). Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as an independent risk factor for mortality in hospitalized
patients with COVID-19. Journal of Infection, 81(1), e6–e12.
[Link]

Loonen, A. J. M., de Jager, C. P. C., Tosserams, J., Kusters, R., Hilbink, M., Wever, P. C., & van
den Brule, A. J. C. (2014). Biomarkers and molecular analysis to improve bloodstream infection
diagnostics in an emergency care unit. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e87315.
[Link]

Medzhitov, R. (2008). Origin and physiological roles of inflammation. Nature, 454(7203), 428–
435. [Link]

Nathan, C., & Ding, A. (2010). Nonresolving inflammation. Cell, 140(6), 871–882.
[Link]

Pepys, M. B., & Hirschfield, G. M. (2003). C-reactive protein: A critical update. The Journal of
Clinical Investigation, 111(12), 1805–1812. [Link]

20
Zahorec, R. (2001). Ratio of neutrophil to lymphocyte counts—Rapid and simple parameter of
systemic inflammation and stress in critically ill. Bratislavské Lekárske Listy, 102(1), 5–14.

Adu-Gyamfi, C. G., Danquah, K. O., & Appiah-Opong, R. (2020). Inflammatory biomarkers and
their clinical relevance in infectious diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. Ghana Medical Journal,
54(4), 234–241. [Link]

Asante, K. P., Owusu-Agyei, S., Cairns, M., Dodoo, D., Gyasi, R., & Oduro, A. (2011).
Inflammatory responses in malaria and other infectious diseases in Ghana. Malaria Journal, 10,
88. [Link]

Gyamfi, J., Yorke, J., & Mensah, K. B. (2019). Patterns of haematological parameters among
patients attending a district hospital in Ghana. African Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 8(1), 1–
7. [Link]

Owiredu, W. K. B. A., Quaye, L., Amidu, N., & Addai-Mensah, O. (2016). Reference ranges of
haematological parameters among healthy adults in Ghana. BMC Hematology, 16(1), 1–9.
[Link]

Tetteh, E. O., Appiah, L. T., & Danquah, M. K. (2021). Utility of simple haematological indices
in disease monitoring in low-resource settings. West African Journal of Medicine, 38(3), 256–
263.

21