ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021
Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.
Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nutrition Recommendations for People Living After Cancer: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for the nutrition of colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Nutrition management for patients with head and neck cancer during peri-radiotherapy: A systematic review and quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II instrument.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines on psychological distress of cancer patients using the AGREE II instrument.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Quality Assessment of the Clinical Practice Guidelines of Ostomy Care Based on the AGREE II Instrument.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- A Cohort Study Protocol of Nutritional Status and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Common Malignancies (NCOM Study).Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Review
- Feeding intelligence: comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and clinical guidelines for nutritional management in head and neck cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score as a Predictor of Prognosis in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Clinical Practice Guidelines Using GRADE and AGREE II for the Impact of Genetic Variants on Plasma Lipid/Lipoprotein/Apolipoprotein Responsiveness to Omega-3 Fatty Acids.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the quality of published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients and to identify high-quality CPGs for clinical healthcare professionals.
methodsGuidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients were comprehensively searched in eight electronic databases, including The Lancet, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), and Wan Fang Data, through August 2020. Six relevant guideline databases, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Guideline International Network (GIN), the New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), the China Guideline Clearinghouse (CGC), and Medlive, and relevant nutrition society websites, were also searched through August 2020. The methodological quality of the included CPGs was appraised independently by three assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II) tool.
resultsSeven CPGs were located, and the domain with the highest percentage was "clarity of presentation" (85.44%), while the domain with the lowest percentage was "applicability" (40.26%). From the AGREE II results, two guidelines were rated as "strongly recommended," three were assessed as "recommended with modifications," and two were deemed as "not recommended."
conclusionConsidering that the two "strongly recommended" guidelines were developed within the American and European contexts, translation, validation, and cultural adaptation are recommended prior to implementing these guidelines in other countries or healthcare contexts to improve their effectiveness and sensitivity for local cancer patients.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration of the study protocol: CRD42020177390 (July 5, 2020).
Indexed as
Identifiers
33638747What 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.