ArticleAcute and critical care2026
Comparative prognostic performance of nutritional assessment tools in critically ill surgical patients after emergency surgery for sepsis or septic shock: a single-center retrospective study in South Korea.
Article in Acute and critical care, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalnutrition is prevalent in critically ill patients. Although various nutritional assessment tools are used in intensive care units (ICUs), their comparative prognostic performance in critically ill surgical patients requiring postoperative ICU care after emergency surgery for sepsis or septic shock remains uncertain. We compared the performance of four tools in predicting ICU mortality.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 218 adult critically ill surgical patients requiring postoperative ICU care after emergency surgery for sepsis or septic shock (January 2015-July 2025). Nutritional status was assessed within 24 hours of ICU admission using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM), modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (mNUTRIC), Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Discriminative performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and incremental value over a baseline model (age, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score).
resultsThe mNUTRIC score showed the highest crude discrimination for ICU mortality, followed by MUST and GLIM, whereas NRS-2002 demonstrated limited discriminatory ability. When added to the baseline clinical model, MUST and GLIM improved mortality prediction, unlike mNUTRIC. Higher risk categories in MUST and GLIM were associated with increased ICU mortality.
conclusionsPrognostic performance varies among nutritional assessment tools. MUST and GLIM provide prognostic information beyond conventional severity scores, whereas the prognostic value of mNUTRIC is largely driven by disease severity, supporting their use for risk stratification in critically ill surgical 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.