ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Comparison of nutritional risk status assessment tools in predicting 30-day survival in critically ill COVID-19 pneumonia patients.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Malnutrition and In-Hospital Death in Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of the NUTRIC, NUTRICm and NUTRICpcr scores in critically ill patients ventilated for COVID-19.Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2025Observational
- Article
- The association between nutrition risk status assessment and hospital mortality in Chinese older inpatients: a retrospective study.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew clinical studies have addressed nutritional risk assessment in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).
objectivesAssess the nutritional risk status of the critically ill COVID-19 pneumonia patients admitted to the ICU, and compare the nutritional risk screening tools.
designMedical record review
settingTertiary critical care unit PATIENTS AND
methodsWe included adult (age >18 years) PCR-confirmed critically ill COVID-19 pneumonia cases admitted to the ICU between August 2020 and September 2021. Scoring systems were used to assess COVID-19 severity and nutritional status (mNUTRIC: modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill, NRS2002: Nutritional Risk Screening 2002). The 30-day mortality prediction performance of nutritional scores and survival comparisons between clinical and demographic factors were assessed.
main outcome measuresCompare the nutrition risk tools SAMPLE SIZE: 281 patients with a mean (SD) age of 64.3 (13.3) years; 143 (50.8%) were 65 years and older.
resultsThe mean mNUTRIC score of the cases was 3.81 (1.66) and the mean NRS-2002 score was 3.21 (0.84.), and 101 (35.9%) were at high risk of malnutrition according to the mNUTRIC score and 229 (81.4%) according to the NRS 2002 score. In cases at high risk of malnutrition by the mNUTRIC score there was a greater need for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and renal replacement therapy (
conclusionOne third of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases hospitalized in the ICU due to acute respiratory failure have a high risk of malnutrition, and a high mNUTRIC score is associated with increased mortality. LIMITATIONS: Single center retrospective study. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.
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.