ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
A Comparison of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) Tool for Older Patients Undergoing General Surgery.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Korean Medicine for Aging Cohort (KoMAC) study-a prospective multicentre cohort in urban and rural Korea: cohort profile.BMJ open · 2026Article
- The prognostic value of combining MNA-SF nutritional status and probable sarcopenia for 90-day readmission in elderly inpatients with multimorbidity.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Geriatric nutritional risk index and prognostic nutritional index improves predictive value of postoperative mortality: a large-scale retrospective cohort study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- Postoperative hypotension in gastric cancer patients: causes and clinical approaches.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Review
- Sarcopenia is linked to malnutrition among Palestinian patients aged >50 years admitted for elective surgeries, along with associated factors.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Advancements in nutritional diagnosis and support strategies during the perioperative period for patients with liver cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Review
- Relation between nutritional status on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients: emphasizing nutritional screening tools in a prospective cohort investigation.BMC nutrition · 2024Article
- Can the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) Predict Healing Complications Following Microvascular Reconstruction of the Head and Neck?Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2024Article
- Advances in Perioperative Nutrition.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal malnutrition screening tool in geriatric surgery has yet to be determined. Herein, we compare two main tools in older patients undergoing general surgery operations. Older patients (>65 years old) who underwent general surgery operations between 2012 and 2017 in a tertiary centre were included. The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF) were used for nutritional risk assessment. Preoperative variables as well as postoperative outcomes were recorded prospectively. Agreement between tools was determined with the weighted kappa (κ) statistic. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the association of the screening tools with postoperative outcomes. A total of 302 patients (median age 74 years, range: 65-92) were included. A similar number of patients were classified as medium/high risk for malnutrition with the MNA-SF and MUST (26% vs. 36%,
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.