Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39722437›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024

Predictive Power of Anthropometric Measures and Indices in Assessing Nutrition-Related Risk Using the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index in Elderly Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Justyna Nowak, Marzena Jabczyk, Michał Skrzypek, Katarzyna Brukało, Bartosz Hudzik, Barbara Zubelewicz-Szkodzinska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparison of Body Mass Index Range Criteria and Their Association with Nutrition-Related Risk: A Cross-Sectional Study in Polish Older Adults.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Justyna NowakDepartment of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, Department of Metabolic Disease Prevention, Faculty of Public Health in Bytom, Medical University of Silesia, Bytom, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0029-1341
Marzena JabczykDepartment of Nutrition-Related Disease Prevention, Department of Metabolic Disease Prevention, Faculty of Public Health in Bytom, Medical University of Silesia, Bytom, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-7767-6207
Michał SkrzypekDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health in Bytom, Medical University of Silesia, Bytom, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-3410-7407
Katarzyna BrukałoDepartment of Health Policy, Faculty of Public Health in Bytom, Medical University of Silesia, Bytom, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0254-8611
Bartosz HudzikDepartment of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, Department of Metabolic Disease Prevention, Medical Univerity of Silesia, Bytom, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-3880-5325
Barbara Zubelewicz-SzkodzinskaDepartment of Nutrition-Related Disease Prevention, Department of Metabolic Disease Prevention, Faculty of Public Health in Bytom, Medical University of Silesia, Bytom, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8670-8581

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Effective assessment and diagnosis using simple nutritional screening tools are crucial for identifying malnutrition in older adults. The aim of the study was to evaluate how effectively different anthropometric parameters, indices, and body composition metrics can assess nutrition-related risks, using the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) in a cohort of 185 patients >60 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS This study included 185 patients over 60 years old. Anthropometric measurements, indices, and body composition were examined. Nutritional status based on GNRI was categorized as major risk (1.1%), moderate risk (9.7%), low risk (15.1%), and no risk (74.1%). RESULTS The strongest correlations with the GNRI were observed for body mass index (BMI) (ρ=0.8628) and body fat in kilograms (ρ=0.8269), P<0.001. A unit increase in BMI decreased the odds of being in the risk group by 52.1% (OR 0.479; 95% CI 0.377-0.609; P<0.001). ROC analysis showed BMI ≤25.0 had the highest predictive value (AUC 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97) in assessing nutrition-related risk in the elderly. Body fat (AUC 0.89, 95% CI 0.85-0.94), abdominal volume index (AUC 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.91), hip circumference (AUC 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.91), and waist circumference (AUC 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.91) also demonstrated significant predictive power (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Our study underscores the importance of using BMI and other related anthropometric measures and indices as part of routine assessments to identify and manage nutrition-related risks among elderly individuals in hospitals, care facilities, and dietetic clinics, particularly in situations where standardized tools for assessing malnutrition are not available or are impossible to use.

Indexed as

AnthropometryBody CompositionBody Mass IndexGeriatric AssessmentMalnutritionNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID39722437
PMCPMC11686918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.