ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2016
Can Nutritional Assessment Tools Predict Response to Nutritional Therapy?
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Association of nutrition risk screening 2002 and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool with COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients in Iran.Acute and critical care · 2022Article
- Tailoring nutrition therapy amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Does it work?Clinical nutrition ESPEN · 2021Observational
- Nutritional risk screening score as an independent predictor of nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia: a cohort study of 67,280 patients.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- High nutritional risk is associated with unfavorable outcomes in patients admitted to an intensive care unit.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2019Article
- Measuring and monitoring lean body mass in critical illness.Current opinion in critical care · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional tools and scoring systems for nutritional assessment have focused solely on parameters of poor nutritional status in the past, in an effort to define the elusive concept of malnutrition. Such tools fail to account for the contribution of disease severity to overall nutritional risk. High nutritional risk, caused by either deterioration of nutritional status or greater disease severity (or a combination of both factors), puts the patient in a metabolic stress state characterized by adverse outcome and increased complications. Newer scoring systems for determining nutritional risk, such as the Nutric Score and the Nutritional Risk Score-2002 have created a paradigm shift connecting assessment and treatment with quality outcome measures of success. Clinicians now have the opportunity to identify high risk patients through their initial assessment, provide adequate or sufficient nutrition therapy, and expect improved patient outcomes as a result. These concepts are supported by observational and prospective interventional trials. Greater clinical experience and refinement in these scoring systems are needed in the future to optimize patient response to nutrition therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26936031What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.