SynthesisAsia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition2026
Prevalence of disease related malnutrition assessed by NRS2002, STAMP, MNA-SF, one-step and two-step GLIM at admission and discharge: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDisease-related malnutrition (DRM) mandates routine screening in many nations to ensure quality care as nutritional status often deteriorates during hospitalization. This study aimed to establish tool-specific prevalence benchmarks at admission and discharge, investigate sources of heterogeneity and evaluate diagnostic yields of one-step versus two-step GLIM approaches. METHODS AND STUDY
designA systematic search of Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL was conducted for cross-sectional studies on nutritional status published between 1 January 2018 and 30 Nov 2025 (PROS-PERO ID: CRD42023480467). Eligible studies were pooled in a meta-analysis of proportions using a random-effects model.
resultsOf 9,693 records retrieved, 179 studies involving 755,092 patients from 30 countries were included. At admission, the pooled prevalence was 0.41 (95% CI 0.35-0.49, I2 = 99.9%) by NRS2002 (≥3, adults), 0.62 (95% CI 0.57-0.67, I2 = 99.3%) by MNA-SF (≤11, older adults), 0.55 (95% CI 0.44-0.68, I2 = 98.5%) by STAMP (≥2, pediatric patients), and 0.39 (95% CI 0.35-0.44, I2 = 99.6%) by GLIM (adults). At discharge, three studies reported a pooled prevalence of 0.19 (95% CI 0.09-0.40, I2 = 94.6%) by NRS2002 for adults, significantly lower than admission (p = 0.044). Comparing GLIM strategies, no statistically significant difference was observed between one-step and two-step GLIM approaches (p = 0.062).
conclusionsDRM prevalence remains high at both admission and discharge, varying widely across countries and by tools. Discharge data are critically limited, reflecting gaps in routine screening practices. Regarding diagnosis, findings support a risk-adapted strategy. Pooled estimates may overestimate the true prevalence and should be interpreted with caution.
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.