ArticleNutrients2024
Comparison of CIPA Nutritional Screening with GLIM Criteria for Malnutrition, Prognostic Evolution, and Association with Phase Angle in Hospitalized Patients.
Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Phase angle reference values in healthy Chinese adults: A descriptive cross-sectional study.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of the CIPA nutritional screening tool in over 30,000 hospitalized patients: a retrospective study (2014-2022).Frontiers in nutrition · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospital malnutrition has high prevalence and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. The lack of standardized nutritional screening prompted the creation of the CIPA screening tool. Several studies have shown that the phase angle (PA) is associated with increased nutritional risk and worse clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to establish the concordance between the CIPA and GLIM criteria and to assess their correlation with PA values and clinical outcomes.
methodsA cross-sectional single-center study was carried out, with a prospective six-month follow-up for the prognostic variables. On admission, the CIPA and GLIM criteria and bioimpedanciometry were assessed.
resultsA total of 510 inpatients were included; 36.5% had positive CIPA outcomes and 46.1% had positive GLIM outcomes. The correlation between the CIPA and GLIM criteria had a kappa index of 0.26,
conclusionsCIPA screening shows a low correlation with GLIM nutritional assessment. Positive CIPA and GLIM have lower PAs than negative and worse prognostic outcomes. The PA cut-off points associated with worse outcomes have been established.
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.