ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
The role of Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index in predicting adverse outcomes in patients with bloodstream infections: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNutritional deficiencies have been associated with the high prevalence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), which is particularly severe in elderly patients. The adverse effects of bloodstream infections (BSIs) in elderly patients are severe when they occur. The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), specifically designed for the elderly, its prediction value of adverse outcomes of BSIs patients remains unclear.
methodsWe conducted a two-year retrospective study in a large Chinese tertiary hospital, by collecting surveillance data on patients with bloodstream infections (BSI). We utilized descriptive analysis to delineate the demographic and clinical characteristics of BSI patients across different GNRI levels. The relationship between GNRI and adverse outcomes in BSI patients was investigated using logistic regression and restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis.
resultsFrom 2020 to 2021, a total of 464 patients with BSI were identified. Among them, 203 (43.8%) were no risk, 70 (15.1%) at low risk, 118 (25.4%) at moderate risk and 73 (15.7%) at major risk for nutrition-related complications based on the GNRI classification. Patients whose GNRI at higher risk had higher mortality (P < 0.001). After adjusting for other covariates by multivariate logistic regression analysis, GNRI at major risk (GNRI < 82) [odds ratio (OR): 3.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52–6.58; P = 0.002] and GNRI at moderate risk (82 to < 92) (OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.00-3.62; P = 0.049) were associated with increased risk for mortality in patients with BSI, while GNRI score (per unit increase) had a protective effect (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94–0.98; P = 0.001). Furthermore, the RCS analysis showed that the risk of mortality decreased as GNRI scores increased and gradually became stable at GNRI scores above 96–98.
conclusionsWe first report the prediction value of GNRI for BSIs patients' adverse outcomes by a two-year retrospective cohort study. There is significantly association between GNRI and adverse outcomes in patients with BSI. For those patients with a lower GNRI, clinicians need to provide more timely and rational nutritional intervention.
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.