SynthesisPloS one2024
Evaluating the accuracy of a nutritional screening tool for patients with digestive system tumors: A hierarchical Bayesian latent class meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [The value of the nutritional assessment index or score in prognostic evaluation for patients with liver cancer].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026Review
- The value of perioperative nutritional risk stratification in the prevention of surgical site infection: precision application from GLIM/PG-SGA to PNI, CONUT, and GNRI.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Advances and challenges in nutritional screening and assessment for cancer patients: a comprehensive systematic review and future directions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
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
backgroundCancer, particularly tumors of the digestive system, presents a major global health challenge. The incidence and mortality rates of these cancers are increasing, and many patients face significant nutritional risks, which are often overlooked in clinical practice. This oversight can lead to serious health consequences, underscoring the need for effective nutritional assessment tools to improve clinical outcomes. Although several nutritional risk screening tools exist, their specific utility for patients with gastrointestinal tumors remains unclear. This study aimed to address this gap by systematically evaluating the performance of various nutritional screening tools in this patient population.
methodsA systematic search of six databases was conducted to identify studies that met predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Diagnostic test metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (positive and negative) were estimated using a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. This approach was used to compare the accuracy of different nutritional screening scales.
resultsA total of 33 eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis, assessing six nutritional screening tools: the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Malnutrition Screening Tool, Nutritional Risk Screening 2002, Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form, Nutritional Risk Index, and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment. Among these, the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment demonstrated the highest performance, with a sensitivity of 0.911 (95% confidence interval: 0.866-0.942) and a specificity of 0.805 (95% confidence interval: 0.674-0.891), outperforming the other screening tools.
conclusionsThis study confirms the effectiveness of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment in identifying malnutrition risk among patients with digestive system tumors. However, as this research focused on a Chinese population, future studies should encompass a broader geographic scope and work toward standardized assessment criteria to enhance the global validation and refinement of nutritional screening tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.