ArticleBMJ open2022
Applicability of five nutritional screening tools in Chinese patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of disease related malnutrition assessed by NRS2002, STAMP, MNA-SF, one-step and two-step GLIM at admission and discharge: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Malnutrition as an independent risk factor for fluoropyrimidine- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy-induced cardiovascular toxicity in colorectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction model for delirium in advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care: development and validation.BMC palliative care · 2025Observational
- Multicentre prospective study on the diagnostic and prognostic validity of malnutrition assessment tools in surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2025Observational
- Relationships between nutritional status and serum adipokine levels with chemotherapy efficacy in late-stage colorectal cancer patients.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Advances and challenges in nutritional screening and assessment for cancer patients: a comprehensive systematic review and future directions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Value analysis of preoperative NRS2002 and GLIM screening in predicting postoperative complications in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Outcomes in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool: A Systematic Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- Comparison of four nutritional screening tools in perioperative elderly patients: Taking orthopedic and neurosurgical patients as examples.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify the most appropriate nutritional risk screening tool for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery, five nutritional screening tools, including the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Short Form of Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) and Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), were employed to evaluate the nutritional risk at admission and short-term clinical outcome prediction.
designA cross-sectional study.
settingA comprehensive affiliated hospital of a university in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.
participants301 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer were continuously recruited to complete the study from October 2020 to May 2021. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Within 48 hours of hospital admission, five nutritional screening tools were used to measure the nutritional risk and to determine their relationship with postoperative short-term clinical outcomes.
resultsThe nutritional risk assesed by the five tools ranged from 25.2% to 46.2%. Taking the Subject Global Assessment as the diagnostic standard, MNA-SF had the best consistency (κ=0.570, p<0.001) and MST had the highest sensitivity (82.61%). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis after adjusting confounding factors showed that the NRS 2002 score ≥3 (OR 2.400, 95% CI 1.043 to 5.522) was an independent risk factor for postoperative complications and was the strongest predictor of postoperative complications (area under the curve 0.621, 95% CI 0.549 to 0.692). The scores of NRS 2002 (r=0.131, p<0.001), MNA-SF (r=0.115, p<0.05) and NRI (r=0.187, p<0.05) were poorly correlated with the length of stay. There was no correlation between the five nutritional screening tools and hospitalisation costs (p>0.05).
conclusionsCompared with the other four nutritional screening tools, we found that NRS 2002 is the most appropriate nutritional screening tool for Chinese patients with colorectal cancer.
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.