ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Diagnostic agreement of nutritional screening tools in obesity-related knee osteoarthritis.
Article in Frontiers in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic agreement, ability to identify concealed malnutrition, and clinical risk stratification value of different nutritional screening tools in patients with obesity-related knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods: Single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional diagnostic agreement study. Consecutive patients with obesity-related KOA hospitalized between January 2022 and January 2024 were enrolled. Nutritional risk was assessed using NRS-2002, MUST, MNA-SF, GNRI, and CONUT; malnutrition was confirmed by the GLIM criteria. Results: Among 520 patients, GLIM-defined malnutrition was present in 146 (28.1%). Detection rates ranged from 17.1% (MUST) to 35.2% (CONUT). Multi-tool agreement was moderate (Fleiss' κ = 0.42). CONUT showed the highest agreement with GLIM (κ = 0.58), MUST the lowest (κ = 0.29). Overall diagnostic discordance rate was 37.9%. MUST had the highest missed diagnosis rate for GLIM-defined malnutrition (42.5%), CONUT the lowest (13.0%). Concealed malnutrition (defined as GLIM-defined malnutrition with BMI ≥ 28 kg/m Conclusion: In this cohort, concealed malnutrition was highly prevalent among patients with obesity-related KOA, accounting for 82.9% of GLIM-defined malnutrition cases. Traditional BMI-dependent screening tools may systematically underestimate nutritional risk in this population. A strategy integrating laboratory indices, inflammatory burden, and muscle mass appears to provide better diagnostic agreement and risk stratification in this setting; however, these findings are derived from a single-center retrospective study and require prospective external validation.
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.