Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36235685›Full record

ArticleNutrients2022

The Performances of SNAQ, GLIM, mNICE, and ASPEN for Identification of Neurocritically Ill Patients at High Risk of Developing Refeeding Syndrome.

Na Liu, Xiao-Lin Zhao, Rui-Qi Xiong, Quan-Feng Chen, Yong-Ming Wu, Zhen-Zhou Lin, Sheng-Nan Wang, Tong Wu, Su-Yue Pan, Kai-Bin Huang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Australasian Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: Consensus statements on refeeding syndrome.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Na LiuDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2493-2334
Xiao-Lin ZhaoDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9959-2170
Rui-Qi XiongDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Quan-Feng ChenDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Yong-Ming WuDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Zhen-Zhou LinDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Sheng-Nan WangDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Tong WuDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Su-Yue PanDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Kai-Bin HuangDepartment of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Nanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We previously found that neurocritically ill patients are prone to refeeding syndrome (RFS), a potentially life-threatening complication. However, there is no unified or validated consensus on the screening tool for RFS so far. We aimed to validate and compare the performance of four screening tools for RFS in neurocritically ill patients. We conducted a single-center, observational, retrospective cohort study among neurocritically ill adult patients who were admitted to the neurocritical care unit (NCU), and who received enteral nutrition for 72 h or longer. They were scored on the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM), the modified criteria of the Britain's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (mNICE), and ASPEN Consensus Recommendations for Refeeding Syndrome (ASPEN) scales to predict RFS risk via admission data. The performance of each scale in predicting RFS was evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent risk factors for RFS, and they were added to the above scales to strengthen the identification of RFS. Of the 478 patients included, 84 (17.57%) developed RFS. The sensitivity of the SNAQ and GLIM was only 20.2% (12.6-30.7%), although they had excellent specificities of 84.8% (80.8-88.1%) and 86.0% (82.1-89.2%), respectively; mNICE predicted RFS with a sensitivity of 48.8% (37.8-59.9%) and a specificity of 65.0% (60.0-69.9%); ASPEN had the highest Youden index, with a sensitivity and specificity of 53.6% (42.4-64.4%) and 64.7% (59.8-69.4%), respectively. The Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curves (AUC) of SNAQ, GLIM, mNICE, and ASPEN to predict RFS were 0.516 (0.470-0.561), 0.533 (0.487-0.579), 0.568 (0.522-0.613), and 0.597 (0.551-0.641), respectively. We identified age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score as independent risk factors of RFS, and the combination of GCS and age can improve the AUC of ASPEN to 0.664 (0.620-0.706) for predicting RFS. SNAQ, GLIM, mNICE, and ASPEN do not perform well in identifying neurocritically ill patients at high risk of RFS, although ASPEN appears to have relatively a good validity among them. Combining GCS and age with ASPEN slightly improves RFS recognition, but it still leaves a lot of room for improvement.

Indexed as

MalnutritionRefeeding SyndromeAdultHumansLeadershipNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairesneurocritical illnessnutritionrefeeding syndromeRFS screening tools

Identifiers

PMID36235685
PMCPMC9572145
OpenAlexW4297524017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.