ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
Evaluating the Outcomes in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic value of controlling nutritional status score (CONUT) in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Expert Consensus on Self-Reported Physical, Nutritional, and Psychological Screening Tools for Prehabilitation in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: An International Delphi Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Food as Friend or Foe: A Decadal Narrative Review of Dietary Patterns as Determinants of Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology and Clinical Outcomes (2015-2025).International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Physical fitness and body composition assessments in advanced cancer patients undergoing exenterative surgery - A pilot cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Predictive Factors Aiding in the Estimation of Intraoperative Resources in Gastric Cancer Oncologic Surgery.Cancers · 2025Article
- Concurrent validity of GLIM criteria in nutritional assessment of surgical patients with colorectal Cancer.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Development and evaluation of a nomogram model for predicting malnutrition in patients with colorectal cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The current systematic review aimed to evaluate the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for its effectiveness in determining patient outcomes (length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, infection rates, and survival) for colorectal cancer. Methods: Utilizing a comprehensive search strategy, this review mined literature up to December 2023 from the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases. The focus was on identifying studies that scrutinize the prognostic value of MUST in relation to hospital outcomes in colorectal cancer contexts. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines ensured a systematic approach, encompassing various study designs and outcome measures. Results: Among the seven studies incorporating 1950 patients, a significant correlation emerged between MUST scores and key hospital outcomes. Specifically, patients categorized as high MUST risk faced longer hospital stays, with a mean length of stay for high-risk patients extending up to 26.6 days compared to 14 days for those at lower risk. The prevalence of postoperative complications was substantially higher in the high-risk group, with up to 41.4% of high MUST risk patients experiencing severe complications (Clavien-Dindo 3-5) compared to 8.5% in the low-risk category. Notably, the review found that high MUST scores were strongly predictive of increased postoperative complications and a prolonged hospital stay, underscoring the tool's critical predictive utility for quality of life and use in clinical settings. Conclusions: Therefore, MUST's capability to predict longer hospital stays and a higher incidence of postoperative complications among high-risk patients highlights its essential function in preoperative evaluations and supports the integration of MUST into routine clinical assessments.
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.