ArticleBMC nutrition2024
Relation between nutritional status on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients: emphasizing nutritional screening tools in a prospective cohort investigation.
Article in BMC nutrition, 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.
- Applying gastric residual volume as one of the indicators for enteral feeding intolerance: A scoping review.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2026Review
- NRS-2002-defined nutritional risk and associated factors in intensive care unit patients: a cross-sectional study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of Nutritional Risk Scores in Septic ICU Patients: A Survival Analysis Using mNUTRIC, PNI, and CONUT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Nutritional status and clinical outcomes in the intensive care unit: A global systematic review and meta-analysis.Metabolism open · 2026Review
- Prognostic Value of the National Early Warning Score Combined with Nutritional and Endothelial Stress Indices for Mortality Prediction in Critically Ill Patients with Pneumonia.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Supplementation with GPR120 (Ffar4) ligand omega-3 does not improve survival in murine sepsis models.American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- A higher prognostic nutritional index is inversely associated with the need for renal replacement therapy in elderly critically Ill surgical patients.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Can Nutritional Screening Tools Predict the Prognosis of Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- Association of mNUTRIC and NRS 2002 Scores with Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Nutrition Optimization Among Critically Ill Patients in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Relationship between the geriatric nutritional risk index and sepsis in elderly critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Advances and challenges in nutritional screening and assessment for cancer patients: a comprehensive systematic review and future directions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Nutritional Strategies for the Treatment and Prevention of Sepsis Outside the Intensive Care Unit.Nutrients · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalnutrition is a significant concern reported in adult critically ill patients, yet there is no gold standard to assess nutritional status in this population. This study examines the association between nutritional status and clinical outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients using nutritional risk assessment tools and aims to look for the best tool.
methodIn a single-center prospective cohort study among 165 patients, the predictive performance of high or low malnutrition risk assessed by Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS), Modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (m-NUTRIC), Mini-Nutritional-Assessment Short-Form (MNA-SF), Controlling Nutritional status (CONUT), and Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) were evaluated and compared for mortality, organ failure, length of hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation (MV).
resultsDifferent assessment tools showed various nutritional statuses. m-NUTRIC and NRS-2002 were found to be associated more strongly relative to other tools with mortality (RR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.42-2.08) and (RR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08-1.72), organ failure (RR = 1.69; 95% CI, 1.44-1.96) and (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99-1.48), MV (RR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.65) and (RR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39) respectively. There was no correlation between malnutrition levels assessed by mentioned tools except for NRS-2002 and length of hospitalization. In predicting mortality or illness severity, the cut points were different for some tools like NUTRIC-score and all assessed outcomes (3.5), MNA-SF and mortality (6.5), CONUT with mortality, and MV (6.5).
conclusionsA considerable proportion of patients admitted to the ICU are at high risk for malnutrition. Compared to other tools, m-NUTRIC and NRS-2002 proved superior in predicting clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. Other tools overestimated the risk of malnutrition in the ICU so couldn't predict clinical outcomes correctly.
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.