Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34620998›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2022

Comparation of different malnutrition screening tools according to GLIM criteria in cancer outpatients.

Marta Gascón-Ruiz, Diego Casas-Deza, Irene Torres-Ramón, María Zapata-García, Natalia Alonso, Andrea Sesma, Julio Lambea, María Álvarez-Alejandro, Elisa Quílez, Dolores Isla and 1 more

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

11 authors.

Marta Gascón-RuizMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Av. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain. marta.gascon6@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6811-6654
Diego Casas-DezaInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria (IIS) Aragón, Av. San Juan Bosco, 13, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6883-8940
Irene Torres-RamónMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Av. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.
María Zapata-GarcíaMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Av. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6654-8106
Natalia AlonsoMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Av. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.
Andrea SesmaMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Av. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.
Julio LambeaMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Av. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.
María Álvarez-AlejandroMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Av. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.
Elisa QuílezMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Av. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.
Dolores IslaMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital Lozano Blesa, Av. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.
Jose M Arbonés-MainarInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria (IIS) Aragón, Av. San Juan Bosco, 13, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany studies have assessed different malnutrition screening tools in oncologic patients. However, very few have been carried out using the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition. The objective of our study is to compare the most recommended screening tools with respect to the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition in cancer patients.

methodsObservational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department at the Lozano Blesa Hospital in Zaragoza. We recruited 165 patients with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract, colorectal, and head-and-neck region undergoing outpatient treatment. All of them received MST, MUST, Nutriscore, MNA and CONUT screening tools, as well as the GLIM diagnostic criteria, which was used as the gold standard.

resultsMNA-SF showed the best sensitivity (0.99) and lowest specificity while CONUT had the best specificity (0.89) and lowest sensitivity to detect cancer-related malnutrition. We observed high variability in the diagnostic capabilities of Nutriscore when tumor location was considered, reducing sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancer compared to those with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract or head-and-neck location (0.25, 0.83, and 0.91 respectively). The highest index of agreement between the screening tools was found between MST, MUST and Nutriscore tests. Regarding the GLIM criteria, the highest agreement index was presented by MUST tool (0.66), while CONUT presented the lowest (0.12).

conclusionsSelecting the screening tool according to the type of cancer and its location may allow us to optimize its use and increase its performance, exploiting the advantages of each of them in the different populations.

Indexed as

MalnutritionNeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerHumansNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentOutpatients

Identifiers

PMID34620998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.