Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40684092›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2025

Global epidemiological characteristics of malnutrition in cancer patients: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review.

Jinhui Zhang, Yumeng Quan, Xiaolin Wang, Xiaolei Wei, Xueli Shen, Xue Li, Tao Liang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Jinhui ZhangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yumeng QuanSchool of Nursing, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100144, China.
Xiaolin WangSchool of Nursing, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100144, China.
Xiaolei WeiSchool of Nursing, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100144, China.
Xueli ShenSchool of Nursing, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100144, China.
Xue LiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Tao LiangSchool of Nursing, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100144, China. liangtao1@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsThe epidemiological characteristics of malnutrition in cancer patients remain unclear. The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, published in 2019, were established to compare the prevalence of malnutrition globally, drive the development of standardized care practices, and promote improved clinical outcomes. This study aimed to systematically assess the prevalence and related factors of malnutrition in cancer patients based on the GLIM criteria, and to evaluate its association with clinical outcomes.

methodsTwo authors independently searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Embase up to July 20, 2024. Eligible studies were observational (cross-sectional or cohort), involved adult cancer patients, and assessed nutritional status using the GLIM criteria. Studies were required to report at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of malnutrition, associated factors, or relevant clinical outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² and Q tests. A random-effects model was used when significant heterogeneity was present (I²>50%, P < 0.05); otherwise, a fixed-effects model was applied. PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251053345.

resultsA total of 20 cross-sectional studies and 45 cohort studies were included, all of which reported the prevalence of malnutrition and together covered over 30,000 cancer patients. Three studies examined factors influencing malnutrition. Nine studies evaluated its impact on overall survival (OS), while three assessed its effect on postoperative complications. Overall, the prevalence of malnutrition was 41% (95% CI: 36-45%), with moderate malnutrition at 19% (95% CI: 16-23%) and severe malnutrition at 20% (95% CI: 17-23%). The main factors influencing malnutrition in cancer patients were tumor-related symptoms. Malnutrition in cancer patients is significantly associated with OS (HR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.56-2.67). Specifically, the risk is significantly increased in patients with moderate malnutrition (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.07-1.72), and even higher in those with severe malnutrition (HR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.55-2.39). Additionally, malnutrition in cancer patients is also significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.41-2.55).

conclusionMalnutrition prevalence is high among cancer patients, primarily due to tumor-related symptoms. It significantly increases the risk of poor clinical outcomes, with a more pronounced effect in patients suffering from severe malnutrition.

Indexed as

MalnutritionNeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNutritional StatusPrevalenceRisk FactorsCancerClinical outcomesMalnutritionPrevalenceRelated factors

Identifiers

PMID40684092
PMCPMC12275410

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.