Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34702965›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2022

AND-ASPEN and ESPEN consensus, and GLIM criteria for malnutrition identification in AECOPD patients: a longitudinal study comparing concurrent and predictive validity.

Bruna Espíndola de Araújo, Veronnike Kowalski, Giovana Molon Leites, Jaqueline da Silva Fink, Flávia Moraes Silva

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bruna Espíndola de AraújoRegistered dietitian, Master student at Nutrition Science Postgraduation Program from Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Veronnike KowalskiNutrition student at Federal University of Health Sciences from Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1198-2105
Giovana Molon LeitesNutrition student at Federal University of Health Sciences from Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Jaqueline da Silva FinkRegistered dietitian at the Nutrition and Dietetics Division of Nossa Senhora da Conceição Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Flávia Moraes SilvaRegistered dietitian, Professor at Nutrition Department and Nutrition Science Postgraduation Program from Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. flaviams@ufcspa.edu.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0730-5424
Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre · BRHospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição · BRUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesMalnutrition in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients is prevalent and usually assessed by body mass index (BMI), which can lead to misdiagnosis. The subjective global assessment (SGA) is the reference method for this diagnose in hospitalized patients. In the last decade, new tools have emerged Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics-American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition [AND-ASPEN], European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism [ESPEN], and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition [GLIM]). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the concurrent and predictive validity of these tools in acute exacerbated COPD (AECOPD) patients. SUBJECTS/

methodsProspective cohort study with hospitalized AECOPD patients. Malnutrition was diagnosed by SGA (reference method), AND-ASPEN, ESPEN, and GLIM consensus. Hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality were the outcomes evaluated.

resultsIn 241 patients (46.5% males; 68.3 ± 10.2 years), malnutrition was found in 50.0% by SGA, 54.4% by AND-ASPEN, 20.2% by ESPEN, and 47.8% by GLIM. AND-ASPEN had the best accuracy (AUC = 0.837; 95% CI 0.783-0.841) and concordance (kappa = 0.674) with SGA and it was an independent predictor of prolonged LOS (OR = 1.73; 95% CI 1.01-3.37). ESPEN consensus did not agree with SGA, but was associated with prolonged LOS (OR = 2.57 95% CI, 1.27-5.20). The GLIM had good concordance (kappa = 0.533) and accuracy with SGA (AUC = 0.768; 95% CI 0.701-0.835), but was not associated with outcomes.

conclusionsThe AND-ASPEN was the most accurate tool for diagnosing malnutrition in AECOPD patients and was an independent predictor of prolonged LOS.

Indexed as

MalnutritionPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveFemaleHumansLeadershipLongitudinal StudiesMaleNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID34702965
OpenAlexW3210074970

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.