ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2025
Comparison of three objective nutritional screening tools for identifying GLIM-defined malnutrition in patients with gastric cancer.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence of disease related malnutrition assessed by NRS2002, STAMP, MNA-SF, one-step and two-step GLIM at admission and discharge: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- CONUT Score as a Predictor of Mortality Risk in Acute and Chronic Heart Failure: A Meta-Analytic Review.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- The interactions between geriatric nutritional risk index and systemic immune-inflammation index for post-recurrence prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer: a retrospective study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Incremental Prognostic Value of the CONUT Score for In-Hospital Mortality and Length of Stay in Hospitalized Patients.Nutrients · 2026Observational
- Diagnostic value of geriatric nutritional risk index and phase angle for malnutrition in patients with COPD: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Diagnostic agreement of nutritional screening tools in obesity-related knee osteoarthritis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Prognostic nutritional index versus pragmatically operationalized GLIM criteria for predicting postoperative complications and recovery in spine surgery: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- The value of perioperative nutritional risk stratification in the prevention of surgical site infection: precision application from GLIM/PG-SGA to PNI, CONUT, and GNRI.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Inflammatory and nutritional markers predict response and prognosis of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer receiving neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Clinical validation of AWGC-defined cachexia in gastric cancer patients: impact on body composition and quality of life.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Triglyceride-glucose index as a marker for visceral obesity in patients with gastric cancer.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare three objective nutritional screening tools for identifying GLIM-defined malnutrition in patients with gastric cancer (GC).
methodObjective nutritional screening tools including geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score, were evaluated in patients with GC at our institution. Malnutrition was diagnosed according to the GLIM criteria. The diagnostic value of GNRI, PNI, and COUNT scores in identifying GLIM-defined malnutrition was assessed by conducting Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and calculating the area under the curve (AUC). Additionally, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were determined. The Kappa coefficient (k) was used to assess agreement between three objective nutritional screening tools and GLIM criteria.
resultsA total of 316 patients were enrolled in this study, and malnutrition was diagnosed in 151 (47.8%) patients based on the GLIM criteria. The GNRI demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.805, 95% CI: 0.758-0.852) for detecting GLIM-defined malnutrition, while the PNI and COUNT score showed poor diagnostic accuracy with AUCs of 0.699 (95% CI: 0.641-0.757) and 0.665 (95% CI: 0.605-0.725) respectively. Among these objective nutritional screening tools, the GNRI-based malnutrition risk assessment demonstrated the highest specificity (80.0%), accuracy (72.8%), PPV (74.8%), NPV (71.4%), and consistency (k = 0.452) with GLIM-defined malnutrition.
conclusionsCompared to PNI and COUNT scores, GNRI demonstrated superior performance as an objective nutritional screening tool for identifying GLIM-defined malnutrition in GC patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39343804What 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.