ArticleAnnals of burns and fire disasters2022
A Pilot Study To Compare Nutrition Screening Tools: Customized Nutrition Screening Tool for Burn Patients (Nstb) and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (Must).
Article in Annals of burns and fire disasters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nutrition screening is an initial procedure in which the risk of malnutrition is identified. It plays a role in and can incur costs to health systems and patients. A customized nutrition screening tool for burn patients (NSTB) was formulated and the nutritional risk score of 22 patients from a burn unit in Bahrain using NSTB and MUST was compared. The samples selected were adult patients aged 18 years or over; pregnant and mentally retarded patients were excluded. Mean age of the total sample was 29.40, and 90.9% were male. Mean BMI was 26.96. The mean and SD for NSTB was 2.18±1.65, and for MUST 2.0±0.0. A difference in the nutritional screening risk score of the same group of patients was observed. In the MUST group, 100% patients were classified as high risk, while in the NSTB group 50% patients were classified as high risk, 36.36% as moderate risk and 13.63% as low risk respectively. The variability of the risk score in the NSTB group helps prioritize the patients based on high, medium, and low risk, whereas MUST categorizes all patients as high risk. A unique screening tool for burns will be more effective in determining risk patients due to tailor-made characteristics. Even though the data sample is small, the difference gives scope for extensive study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38680630PMC11041966What 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.