ArticleClinical nutrition ESPEN2022
A modified nutrition risk screening 2002 predicts the risk of death among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Article in Clinical nutrition ESPEN, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and application guidelines for malnutrition in adult patients (2025 edition).Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Guideline
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Malnutrition and In-Hospital Death in Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Malnutrition Screening Tools for Geriatric Patients Presenting to Emergency Department: Agreement and Prognostic Utility for Hospital Admission and Length of Stay.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Leveraging Deep Learning to Enhance Malnutrition Detection via Nutrition Risk Screening 2002: Insights from a National Cohort.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Article
- Improving Nutritional Status Was Associated with Decreasing Disease Severity and Shortening of Negative Conversion Time of PCR Test in Non-ICU Patients with COVID-19.Infection and drug resistance · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of a modified Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (modified NRS) compared with other nutrition screening tools such as NRS 2002, Mini Nutrition Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF), and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) on predicting the risk of death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
methodsWe retrospectively collected data of patients who were admitted to the West campus of Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology between January 25th, 2020 to April 24th, 2020. The nutritional status of the patients was assessed by modified NRS, NRS 2002, MNA-SF, and MUST. According to the score of modified NRS, patients were divided into malnutrition risk group (score ≥3) and normal nutrition group (score <3). Clinical characteristics were compared between the two groups. Kaplan meier survival curve was used to analyze the difference of compositing survival rate between the two groups. The predictive efficacy of different nutritional scales on the outcome of death was detected by Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsThe modified NRS, NRS 2002, MNA-SF, and MUST identified malnutrition risk in 71.4%, 57.9%, 73.9%, and 43.4% of the patients, respectively. The patients were divided into malnutrition risk group and normal nutrition group by modified NRS score. Patients in the malnutrition risk group were older (65 y vs. 56 y) and with more severe and critical cases (42.30% vs. 5.20%) and diabetes cases (21.50% vs. 9.80%), worse prognosis (death of 13.80% vs. 0.50%), longer hospital stay (29 days vs. 23 days), lower albumin (31.85 g/L vs. 38.55 g/L) and prealbumin (201.95 mg/L vs. 280.25 mg/L) compared with the normal nutrition group (P were <0.001, respectively). There were more patients with chronic respiratory disease in malnutrition risk group (9.70 vs. 2.10%, P = 0.001). BMI was lower in malnutrition risk group (23.45 kg/m
conclusionsPatients with COVID-19 at risk of malnutrition have a worse prognosis than those with normal nutrition. The modified NRS scale could effectively predict the risk of death among patients with COVID-19.
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.