ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
GLIM‑Defined Malnutrition in Critically Ill Patients: A Comparison of Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 and Modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill as First‑Step Screening Tools.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Given the high prevalence and prognostic significance of malnutrition in critically ill patients, selecting an appropriate first-step screening tool within the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) framework is critical. This study aimed to compare the consistency of Nutrition Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) and the modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) as GLIM-based screening strategies and to assess their associations with clinical outcomes in this population. Patients and Methods: A single-center prospective observational study was conducted involving 173 critically ill patients hospitalized ≥4 days in an intensive care unit (ICU). Nutritional risk was screened within 24 hours of admission using NRS-2002 or mNUTRIC. Patients screening positive underwent malnutrition diagnosis using GLIM (phenotypic: weight loss or low body mass index; etiologic: reduced intake or inflammation/disease burden). The consistency between the two screening strategies was assessed, and their associations with clinical outcomes were analyzed. The effect of nutritional treatment in patients with malnutrition has been explored in a subgroup analysis. Results: Malnutrition prevalence was 18.5% (32/173) using NRS-2002+GLIM and 13.9% (24/173) using mNUTRIC+GLIM. The two screening strategies showed substantial agreement (κ = 0.79, p < 0.001). Malnutrition diagnosed by mNUTRIC+GLIM demonstrated stronger associations with adverse outcomes. These included significantly greater proportions of ICU days under sedation (b = 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.33) and vasopressor (b = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.06-0.37), as well as a higher risk of adverse discharge status (odds ratio = 6.24, 95% CI: 2.20-18.38). In the exploratory subgroup analysis with a limited sample size, patients identified as malnutrition by mNUTRIC+GLIM showed lower in‑hospital mortality following nutrition treatment. (0% vs. 66.7%; p < 0.05). Conclusion: Substantial consistency was observed between NRS-2002+GLIM and mNUTRIC+GLIM, and both were significantly associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. Notably, mNUTRIC+GLIM showed stronger prognostic value, indicating its potential as a more appropriate screening strategy in critically ill patients.
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.