Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37063338›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2023

Comparison of four nutritional screening tools in perioperative elderly patients: Taking orthopedic and neurosurgical patients as examples.

Jie Gong, Silu Zuo, Jie Zhang, Li Li, Jie Yin, XinYi Li, Fengmei Yu, Wen Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Jie GongDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Silu ZuoDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jie ZhangDepartment of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Li LiDepartment of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jie YinDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
XinYi LiDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Fengmei YuDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Wen HuDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims: Malnutrition is widely present in elderly surgical patients and is highly correlated with prognosis after surgery. However, studies comparing the effectiveness of comprehensive nutritional screening tools in geriatric surgical patients have not yet been published. The nutritional risk among elderly orthopedic and neurosurgical patients and their associated clinical indicators and outcomes was assessed using four screening tools. The aim of this study was to explore suitable tools for screening the nutritional status and identify their potential to act as prognostic indicators. Methods: The Nutritional Risk Score 2002 (NRS2002), Mini Nutritional Assessment - Short Form (MNA-SF), Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), and Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) were all performed within two days of admission and before surgery. The relationships between nutritional risk classifications and conventional nutritional markers, complications and length of hospital stay (LOS) were evaluated. Results: In this study, a total of 167 orthopedic patients and 103 neurosurgical patients were evaluated. In neurosurgical patients, the rates of malnutrition or patients at risk of malnutrition according to the MNA-SF, GNRI, NRS2002 and PNI were 26.4, 24.6, 8.4, and 12.6%, respectively. According to the NRS2002 and PNI, the rates of old neurosurgical patients who were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition were 14.6 and 3.9%, respectively, which were lower than the results assessed by the MNA-SF (24.3%) and GNRI (15.5%). Multiple regression analysis revealed a significant relationship between the PNI (malnourished vs.well-nourished, OR = 5.39, 95% CI:1.11-26.18, P = 0.037), GNRI (at risk vs.no risk, OR = 3.96, 95% CI: 1.01-15.45, Conclusion: Among the four nutritional risk screening tools, the GNRI exhibited better predictive value for short-term outcomes in elderly perioperative orthopedic and neurosurgical patients, thereby suggesting that it might be a more suitable tool for nutritional risk screening. Additional studies are required to determine the applicability of GNRI in other surgical fields.

Indexed as

elderlynutritional risknutritional screening toolsperioperativeprognosis

Identifiers

PMID37063338
PMCPMC10090350

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.