Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41777274›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025

Comparative performance of the patient-generated subjective global assessment, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism criteria, and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria in patients with colorectal cancer: a multicenter study utilizing Bayesian inference.

Ze-Cheng Zhang, Wei-Dong Jin, Hong-Jiang Ma, Yi Zhang, Yunlong Li, Jun Zhu, Yi-Huan Qiao, Yong-Tao Du, Yu Jiang, Jia-Wei Song and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

19 authors.

Ze-Cheng Zhang *Department of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Wei-Dong Jin *Department of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Hong-Jiang Ma *Department of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yi Zhang *Department of General Surgery, General Hospital of Central Theater Command, Wuhan, China.
Yunlong LiDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Jun ZhuDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yi-Huan QiaoDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yong-Tao DuDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yu JiangDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Jia-Wei SongDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Jia-Lin WangDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Shuai LiuDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Ya-Jie GuoDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Bo-Yu KangDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Qi WangDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Shi-Hao QinDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Chun-Hua SongDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Han-Ping ShiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ji-Peng LiDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Malnutrition is a common complication among patients with colorectal cancer and has a significant impact on prognosis. However, the lack of a diagnostic gold standard for malnutrition complicates clinical nutritional intervention. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria in identifying malnutrition in patients with colorectal cancer and to assess their ability to predict survival outcomes. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed data from 3,182 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the Investigation on Nutrition Status and Clinical Outcome of Patients with Common Cancers in China database collected between July 2013 and March 2022. Using Bayesian principles, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the PG-SGA, ESPEN, and GLIM criteria for diagnosing malnutrition among patients with colorectal cancer. We also analyzed the relation between nutritional diagnosis and patient survival. Results: Our findings revealed that the PG-SGA has high sensitivity [0.80, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.61-0.94] and specificity (0.99, 95% CrI, 0.99-1.00) for diagnosing malnutrition in patients with colorectal cancer. The ESPEN criteria showed high sensitivity (0.84, 95% CrI, 0.80-0.86), whereas the GLIM criteria exhibited high specificity (0.81, 95% CrI, 0.79-0.82). All three nutritional assessment methods were identified as independent risk factors for overall survival. Statistically significant differences in survival periods existed among the GLIM-defined nutritional status subgroups. Conclusion: The PG-SGA demonstrated superior sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing malnutrition among patients with colorectal cancer. By contrast, the GLIM criteria performed better in predicting survival outcomes. Malnutrition is a significant risk factor that influences the survival of patients with colorectal cancer.

Indexed as

Bayesiancolorectal cancerdiagnosisEuropean Society for Clinical Nutrition and MetabolismGlobal Leadership Initiative on MalnutritionmalnutritionPatient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment

Identifiers

PMID41777274
PMCPMC12950724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.