ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2018
Validity of the new nutrition screening tool Control of Food Intake, Protein, and Anthropometry (CIPA) in non-surgical inpatients.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06031766 (Comparison of CIPA With the GLIM Criteria of Malnutrition and Prevalence of Sarcopenia in Inpatients), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Comparison of CIPA With the GLIM Criteria of Malnutrition and Prevalence of Sarcopenia in Inpatients
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis of early detection of patients at nutrition risk during their hospital stay through the new screening method CIPA: a study protocol.BMC health services research · 2017Trial
- Prognostic value of the CIPA nutritional screening tool in over 30,000 hospitalized patients: a retrospective study (2014-2022).Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of the hospital nutrition screening tool CIPA.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2020Article
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Surgical Patients Subjected to CIPA Nutrition Screening and Treatment versus Standard Care.Nutrients · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is no gold-standard method for hospital nutrition screening. The new screening tool termed Control of Food Intake, Protein, and Anthropometry (CIPA) gives positive results when at least one of the following parameters is met: control of food intake for 72 h < 50%, serum albumin < 3 g/dl, body mass index < 18.5 kg/m MATERIAL AND
methodsA prospective, longitudinal study was performed on 221 consecutively enrolled patients. Prevalence or risk of malnutrition was estimated with CIPA vs. SGA screening at hospital admission and the concordance (k index -
resultsThe prevalence or risk of malnutrition identified by CIPA and SGA was 35.7% and 23.1%, respectively.
conclusionsThe CIPA and the SGA screening tools detect patients with a higher risk of mortality, but only CIPA identifies patients with an increased mean LOS. CIPA screening proved valid for use in non-surgical inpatients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.