ArticleThe British journal of nutrition2025
Turkish version of the renal inpatient nutrition screening tool: validity and reliability for haemodialysis patients.
Article in The British journal of nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
The aim of this study was to analyse the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the renal inpatient nutrition screening tool (Renal iNUT) for haemodialysis patients. The Renal iNUT and the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) were used in adult haemodialysis patients at two different centres to identify malnutrition. The subjective global assessment (SGA), regarded as the gold standard for nutritional status assessment, was utilised for comparison. Structural validity was assessed using biochemical values and anthropometric measurements, while reliability was assessed using repeated the Renal iNUT assessment. Of the 260 patients admitted, 42·3 % were malnourished (SGA score was B or C). According to the Renal iNUT, 59·6 % of the patients were at increased risk for malnutrition (score ≥ 1) and 3·8 % required referral to a dietitian (score ≥ 2). According to the MUST, 13·1 % of the patients were at increased risk for malnutrition and 8·5 % required referral to a dietitian. The Renal iNUT was found to be more sensitive in detecting increased risk of malnutrition in haemodialysis patients compared with the MUST (59·6 %
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.