ArticleScientific reports2025
Diagnostic performance of mini nutritional Assessment-Short form against the global leadership initiative on malnutrition criteria.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Nutritional Status and Cardiovascular Disease in Older Adults: Clinical Perspectives from Mechanisms to Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2018, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) experts accepted screening for malnutrition with any validated tool. In gerontological dietetics, Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) remains the most frequently used one. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of MNA-SF against the GLIM criteria in a representative group of older adults (PolSenior2 study population). The complete dataset was available for 5614 participants. We compared two groups of respondents: fulfilling GLIM criteria (GLIM malnutrition, positive screening) and GLIM malnutrition, screening negative. At least one phenotypic and one etiological GLIM criterion was diagnosed in 1136 (20.2%) study participants, including 789 with positive screening results. Therefore, malnutrition would have been undiagnosed in one-third of the malnourished group (30.5% of the group was diagnosed based on the GLIM criterion). In comparison with participants with GLIM malnutrition, screening positive, those with GLIM malnutrition, screening negative were younger and more often had an acute or chronic inflammatory disease. They were less likely to report unintentional weight loss and reduced food intake, and they had higher body weight and BMI. The sensitivity of the MNA-SF in diagnosing malnutrition was estimated at 69.5%. Based on our findings, using a high clinical malnutrition risk profile as an alternative to screening tools for malnutrition in the GLIM diagnostic algorithm could be beneficial.
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.