Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36396666›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Comparison of nutritional risk screening with NRS2002 and the GLIM diagnostic criteria for malnutrition in hospitalized patients.

Marte A Trollebø, Eli Skeie, Ingrid Revheim, Helene Stangeland, Mari-Anne H Erstein, Martin K Grønning, Randi J Tangvik, Mette H Morken, Ottar Nygård, Tomas M L Eagan and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marte A TrollebøCenter for Nutrition, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. marte.trollebo@uib.no.
Eli SkeieDepartment of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ingrid RevheimCenter for Nutrition, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Helene StangelandCenter for Nutrition, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Mari-Anne H ErsteinCenter for Nutrition, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Martin K GrønningCenter for Nutrition, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Randi J TangvikCenter for Nutrition, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Mette H MorkenDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ottar NygårdCenter for Nutrition, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Tomas M L EaganDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Hanne Rosendahl-RiiseCenter for Nutrition, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Jutta DierkesCenter for Nutrition, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
University of Bergen · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nutritional risk screening, to identify patients at risk of malnutrition, is the first step in the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in hospitalized patients, and should be followed by a thorough nutritional assessment resulting in a diagnosis of malnutrition and subsequent treatment. In 2019, a consensus on criteria has been suggested for the diagnosis of malnutrition by the Global Leadership Initiative for Malnutrition (GLIM). This study investigates the diagnosis of malnutrition in hospitalized patients using nutritional risk screening and the diagnostic assessment suggested by GLIM. Hospitalized patients (excluding cancer, intensive care, and transmissible infections) who underwent nutritional risk screening (by NRS2002) were included. Nutritional risk screening was followed by anthropometric measurements including measurement of muscle mass, assessment of dietary intake and measurement of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) for inflammation in all patients. Malnutrition was diagnosed according to the GLIM-criteria. In total, 328 patients (median age 71 years, 47% women, median length of stay 7 days) were included. Nutritional risk screening identified 143 patients as at risk of malnutrition, while GLIM criteria led to a diagnosis of malnutrition in 114 patients. Of these 114 patients, 77 were also identified as at risk of malnutrition by NRS2002, while 37 patients were not identified by NRS2002. Malnutrition was evident in fewer patients than at risk of malnutrition, as expected. However, a number of patients were malnourished who were not identified by the screening procedure. More studies should investigate the importance of inflammation and reduced muscle mass, which is the main difference between nutritional risk screening and GLIM diagnostic assessment.

Indexed as

LeadershipMalnutritionAgedFemaleHumansInflammationMaleMass ScreeningNutrition Assessment

Identifiers

PMID36396666
PMCPMC9672100
OpenAlexW4309508377

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.