ArticleNutrients2021
Comparing Assessment Tools as Candidates for Personalized Nutritional Evaluation of Senior Citizens in a Nursing Home.
Article in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral Health, Polypharmacy and Nutritional Status in Institutionalized Dementia Patients: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Nutrition, functional status, polypharmacy, and digestive disturbances in institutionalized patients with dementia: insights from comprehensive screening at admission.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Consistency of Mini-Nutritional Assessment short form and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 in nutritional evaluation of diabetic foot patients.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- A nomogram model for predicting malnutrition among older hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in China.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nutrition is an important health issue for seniors. In nursing homes, simple, inexpensive, fast, and validated tools to assess nutritional risk/status are indispensable. A multisurvey cross-sectional study with a convenient sample was created, comparing five nutritional screening/assessment tools and the time required for each, in order to identify the most useful instrument for a nursing home setting. Nutrition risk/status was evaluated using the following tools: Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), and calf girth (CG). The time spent completing each tool was recorded. Eighty-three subjects were included. MNA-SF and CG were the screening tools that ranked highest with regards to malnutrition identification. CG failed to identify nutritional risk/malnutrition in seniors with lower limb edema. CG was the fastest tool while SGA was the slowest. This was the first study comparing non-invasive nutritional tools with time expended as a consideration in the implementation. CG is responsive, fast, and reliable in elders without edema. MNA-SF was more efficient at detecting malnutrition cases in the elderly population. Both MNA-SF and CG are considered the most suitable for the nursing home setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.