Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33466724›Full record

ArticleNutrients2021

Comparison of Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 and Subjective Global Assessment Form as Short Nutrition Assessment Tools in Older Hospitalized Adults.

Łukasz Kroc, Elizaveta Fife, Edyta Piechocka-Wochniak, Bartłomiej Sołtysik, Tomasz Kostka

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2021. 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
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Łukasz KrocHealthy Ageing Research Centre (HARC), Department of Geriatrics, Medical University of Lodz, Pieniny 30, 92-003 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3269-3513
Elizaveta FifeHealthy Ageing Research Centre (HARC), Department of Geriatrics, Medical University of Lodz, Pieniny 30, 92-003 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4316-4801
Edyta Piechocka-WochniakHealthy Ageing Research Centre (HARC), Department of Geriatrics, Medical University of Lodz, Pieniny 30, 92-003 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-6247-4824
Bartłomiej SołtysikHealthy Ageing Research Centre (HARC), Department of Geriatrics, Medical University of Lodz, Pieniny 30, 92-003 Lodz, Poland.
Tomasz KostkaHealthy Ageing Research Centre (HARC), Department of Geriatrics, Medical University of Lodz, Pieniny 30, 92-003 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0437-650X
Medical University of Lodz · PL

Funding

Medical University of Lodz 503/6-077-01/503 61-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare two widely recommended short nutrition assessment tools-Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) and Subjective Global Assessment Form (SGA)-with other Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) measurements. The study included 622 consecutively hospitalized older subjects, aged 81.7 ± 7.8 years. The criteria to participate were the ability to communicate and given consent. Both NRS-2002 and SGA were inversely related to anthropometric measurements, functional assessment tests, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and positively associated with the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) score. Results of SGA and NRS-2002 were not related to sex and 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) score. Comparison of well-nourished subjects and patients with suggested problems with nutrition according to NRS-2002 (0-2 vs. 3-7) and SGA (A vs. B + C) gave comparable results. Both nutritional scales at given cut-off points similarly discriminated anthropometric data and other CGA tools in the populations of well-nourished vs. malnourished hospitalized older subjects. In conclusion, we can recommend using both NRS-2002 and SGA to detect malnutrition or risk of malnutrition in a routine clinical practice of the geriatric department ward.

Indexed as

Nutrition AssessmentAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHospitalizationHumansMaleMalnutritionMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityComprehensive Geriatric AssessmentmalnutritionNRS-2002SGAVES-13

Identifiers

PMID33466724
PMCPMC7828813
OpenAlexW3120692802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.