ReviewNutrients2024
A Narrative Review Comparing Nutritional Screening Tools in Outpatient Management of Cancer Patients.
Review in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Observational
- Impact of nutritional risk screening on outcomes of first-line treatment in metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: a secondary analysis of the AIO-MATEO trial.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Malnutrition predicts severe complications but not survival in laryngeal cancer surgery: a propensity-matched analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Severe Malnutrition Identified by the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score Is Associated With Prolonged Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Stay in Pneumonia Complicated With Respiratory Failure Patients Who Underwent Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Multimodal Prehabilitation in Major Abdominal Surgery-Rationale, Modalities, Results and Limitations.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- The Impact of Nutritional Support on Outcomes of Lung Cancer Surgery-Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Prevalence of Nutritional Risk and Obesity in Mexican Cancer Outpatients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advances and challenges in nutritional screening and assessment for cancer patients: a comprehensive systematic review and future directions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Hematological Malignancies in Older Patients: Focus on the Potential Role of a Geriatric Assessment Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Assessing Nutritional Status in Gastric Cancer Patients after Total versus Subtotal Gastrectomy: Cross-Sectional Study.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Nutritional care for cancer patients: are we doing enough?Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- New insights in submucous fibrosis: Nicotine dependence and nutritional assessment.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malnutrition during cancer has a negative impact on prognosis and quality of life. Therefore, it is important to identify those patients at higher nutritional risk to prevent its development. There are nutritional screening tools, such as MUST and NRS-2002, that focus on the patient on admission to hospital. However, most patients will develop malnutrition in the outpatient or ambulatory setting. This study aims to determine which nutritional screening tool is most effective in assessing nutritional risk in the outpatient oncology patient, highlighting the parameters analysed by these tools. Seventeen articles were reviewed, with the most important variables being tumour location, tumour stage, age, and gender, as well as recent weight loss, dietary intake, and digestive disorders. The Nutriscore, NRS-2002, and MUST tools are considered suitable, but the choice varies depending on these parameters. MNA is suitable for elderly patients, while SNAQ was not considered reliable in this population. In conclusion, MUST, NRS-2002, and Nutriscore are suitable tools, but their choice depends on specific characteristics. There is currently no universal tool for nutritional risk assessment in outpatients.
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.