ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2025
Which screening tool performs best in identifying malnutrition risk among hospitalized older adults with cardiovascular disease? A diagnostic accuracy study comparing six different screening tools with GLIM criteria.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Peripheral Parenteral Nutrition in Hospitalized Patients: A Clinical Case Series.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Nutritional screening within the GLIM procedure-Part 1: Development of a conceptual definition of risk of malnutrition using a modified Delphi procedure.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2026Article
- Low muscle mass as an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality among older inpatients with aspiration pneumonia: a nationwide cohort study.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Sarcopenia and diaphragmatic motility in patients with acute respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation.European geriatric medicine · 2026Observational
- Malnutrition, diet quality, and psychological well-being in older adults: a hospital outpatient study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of mini nutritional Assessment-Short form against the global leadership initiative on malnutrition criteria.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Nutritional Status Assessment Tools in Cardiovascular Patients.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study With Nutritional Assessment.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the performance of six different screening tools with the GLIM criteria in identifying malnutrition risk among older adults with cardiovascular diseases.
methodsIn this diagnostic accuracy study, data from 669 patients aged 65 and older, hospitalized at Bandırma Training and Research Hospital diagnosed with cardiovascular disease, were evaluated. The data were obtained using a questionnaire that included a Demographic Information Form, Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) Criteria, Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF), Nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002), and Graz Malnutrition Screening (GMS) tool. GLIM criteria were used as gold standard and six screening tools were used as index tests. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to calculate the Area Under the Curve (AUC), and the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and Cohen's Kappa (κ) coefficient of the index tests were assessed.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 75.5 ± 7.7 years, 55.2% were female. According to the GLIM criteria, the prevalence of malnutrition was calculated as 22.0%. The AUC calculated by ROC indicated that MST (AUC: 0.905) had excellent predictive value, while MUST (AUC: 0.874), SNAQ (AUC: 0.851), MNA-SF (AUC: 0.842), and GMS (AUC: 0.820) demonstrated good predictive value. Among the screening tools, GMS had the highest sensitivity (92.5%), whereas MNA-SF exhibited the highest specificity (91.6%). MNA-SF also demonstrated the highest agreement with the GLIM criteria (Cohen's κ: 66.8) and the highest accuracy (88.3%).
conclusionThis study found that the MNA-SF tool outperformed other comprehensive screening tools when evaluating malnutrition risk in light of the GLIM criteria.
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.