Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36849719›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Differences in nutritional risk assessment between NRS2002, RFH-NPT and LDUST in cirrhotic patients.

Peiyan Zhang, Qi Wang, Mengran Zhu, Pingping Li, Yuzhen Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Nutritional Risk Score-2002 and Royal Free Hospital-Nutritional Prioritizing Tool Nutrition Screening Tools in Liver Cirrhosis.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peiyan ZhangDepartment of Geriatric Gastroenterology, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050000, China.
Qi WangDepartment of Geriatric Gastroenterology, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050000, China.
Mengran ZhuDepartment of Geriatric Gastroenterology, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050000, China.
Pingping LiDepartment of Geriatric Gastroenterology, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050000, China.
Yuzhen WangDepartment of Geriatric Gastroenterology, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050000, China. wyzhen233@126.com.
Hebei General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nutritional status is an independent predictor of outcome in cirrhosis patients. Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002), Royal Free Hospital-Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT), and Liver Disease Undernutrition Screening Tool (LDUST) were employed to detect cirrhosis with malnutrition risk in this work. Meanwhile, their diagnostic performances were compared to find the best screening method. This work aimed to establish the sarcopenia cut-off value of the transversal psoas thickness index (TPTI), and identify the risk factors for malnutrition. Cirrhosis patients who were admitted to Heibei Gerneral hospital from April 2021 to October 2021 and underwent abdominal CT examination were enrolled. 78 patients were assessed by NRS2002, RFH-NPT, and LDUST. The Global Leadership Initiative for Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria were selected as the gold standard for the diagnosis of malnutrition. Meanwhile the cut-off value of sarcopenia was established based on the TPTI of malnourished patients. Logistic regression analysis was adopted to assess the influencing factors of malnutrition risk and malnutrition. The prevalence of malnutrition was 42.31%. The prevalence of malnutrition risk was 32.1%, 61.5%, and 62.8% with NRS2002, RFH-NPT, and LDUST, respectively. NRS2002 presented the best specificity compared with the other methods, while RFH-NPT showed the highest sensitivity. The optimal gender-specific TPTI cut-off value for diagnosing sarcopenia was determined as TPTI < 14.56 mm/m (male) and TPTI < 8.34 mm/m (female). In the multivariate analysis, ascites was associated with malnutrition risk, while sarcopenia showed a significant risk for malnutrition. NRS2002 and RFH-NPT were superior to LDUST at detecting the malnutrition in cirrhosis patients diagnosed according to GLIM criteria. The gender-specific TPTI cut-off value was TPTI < 14.56 mm/m (male) and TPTI < 8.34 mm/m (female). Malnutrition risk should be screened for patients with ascites as soon as possible. In addition, it was important to evaluate malnutrition in sarcopenia patients in time.

Indexed as

Digestive System DiseasesLiver DiseasesMalnutritionSarcopeniaAscitesFemaleHospitalsHumansLiver CirrhosisMaleRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID36849719
PMCPMC9971362
OpenAlexW4322499791

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.