ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Efficiency analysis of nutritional screening tools for children with congenital heart disease: a retrospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of Non-Invasive Machine-Learning Screening Models for Pediatric Malnutrition in Hospitalized Children: A Single-Center Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of nutritional risk screening tools in hospitalized children with acute gastroenteritis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Screening modality matters: heterogeneous nutritional status, disease complexity in children with congenital heart disease detected through active versus passive surveillance.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Perioperative Nutrition in Pediatric Patients with Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Failure.Nutrients · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to (1) determine the prevalence of malnutrition among hospitalized children with congenital heart disease (CHD), (2) evaluate the effectiveness of common pediatric nutritional screening tools across various age groups, and (3) specifically assess the tools' efficacy in identifying severe malnutrition, thereby facilitating early nutritional intervention. Methods: A retrospective observational analysis was performed using clinical data from 3,677 children (0-18 years) with congenital heart disease who underwent surgical intervention at the Cardiothoracic Surgery Center between January 2018 and December 2022. The World Health Organization growth curves were used as standards to compare the efficacy of four screening tools: Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Pediatrics (STAMP), Screening Tool Risk on Nutritional status and Growth (STRONGkids), Risk Adjustment in Congenital Heart Surgery-1 method (RACHS-1), and the combined STAMP + STRONGkids (SS) adjusted score across different age groups. Categorical data were expressed as percentages, and Chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis, with pairwise comparisons performed using Bonferroni correction. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to calculate specificity, sensitivity, and optimal cutoff values. The consistency of screening results was further assessed using Youden's index and Kappa values. Results: The prevalence of malnutrition among CHD patients was 32.9% (1,208/3,667). Using World Health Organization (WHO) curves as the gold standard for diagnosing malnutrition, the AUC for the ROC curves of STAMP, STRONGkids, and SS were 0.841, 0.747, and 0.863 ( Conclusion: For hospitalized CHD patients aged 0-18 years, the nutritional screening tool STAMP is more effective than STRONGkids, and SS combines the advantages of both tools as it demonstrates the best screening efficacy. However, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the RACHS-1 score was 0.525 (
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.