Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30782871›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Comparison of two malnutrition risk screening tools with nutritional biochemical parameters, BMI and length of stay in Chinese geriatric inpatients: a multicenter, cross-sectional study.

Jian-Ping Miao, Xiao-Qing Quan, Cun-Tai Zhang, Hong Zhu, Mei Ye, Li-Ya Shen, Qiu-Hui Guo, Gang-Yan Zhu, Qi-Jian Mei, Yan-Xia Wu and 2 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A nomogram for predicting nutritional risk before gastric cancer surgery.Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jian-Ping Miao *Department of Geriatrics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4770-1088
Xiao-Qing Quan *Department of Geriatrics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Cun-Tai ZhangDepartment of Geriatrics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Hong ZhuDepartment of Geriatrics, The Central Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Mei YeDepartment of Geriatrics, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Li-Ya ShenDepartment of Geriatrics, Wuhan No 6 Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Qiu-Hui GuoDepartment of Geriatrics, Wuhan No 6 Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Gang-Yan ZhuDepartment of Geriatrics, Hubei General Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Qi-Jian MeiDepartment of Geriatrics, General Hospital of the Yangtze River Shipping, Wuhan, China.
Yan-Xia WuDepartment of Geriatrics, Wuhan No 1 Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Shu-Guo LiDepartment of Geriatrics, First Clinical Medical College, Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, China.
Hong-Lian ZhouDepartment of Geriatrics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aims of this study were to assess malnutrition risk in Chinese geriatric inpatients using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) and Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), and to identify the most appropriate nutritional screening tool for these patients.

designCross-sectional study.

settingEight medical centres in Hubei Province, China.

participantsA total of 425 inpatients aged ≥70 years were consecutively recruited between December 2014 and May 2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Nutritional risk was assessed using NRS2002, MNA, anthropometric measurements and biochemical parameters within 24 hours of admission. Comorbidities and length of hospitalisation were recorded. Nutritional parameters, body mass index (BMI) and length of hospital stay (LOS) were employed to compare MNA and NRS2002. Kappa analysis was used to evaluate the consistency of the two tools.

resultsThe average age was 81.2±5.9 years (range, 70-98). The prevalence of undernutrition classified by NRS2002 and MNA was 40.9% and 58.6%, respectively. Patients undergoing malnutrition had lower BMI, haemoglobin, albumin and prealbumin (p<0.05), and longer LOS (p<0.05). The NRS2002 showed moderate agreement (κ=0.521, p<0.001) with MNA. Both tools presented significant correlation with age, BMI and laboratory parameters (p<0.001). In addition, a significant association between both tools and LOS was found (p<0.05). In addition, the NRS2002 was not different from MNA in predicting nutritional risk in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (p>0.05).

conclusionsThe results show a relatively high prevalence of malnutrition risk in our sample cohort. We found that NRS2002 and MNA were both suitable in screening malnutrition risk among Chinese geriatric inpatients.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexAgedAged, 80 and overChinaCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansInpatientsLength of StayLinear ModelsMaleMalnutritionMass ScreeningNutrition Assessmentmalnutrition riskmnaNrs2002older patients

Identifiers

PMID30782871
PMCPMC6411257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.