SynthesisJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association2026
Nutritional Risk Screening Recommendations for Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Research Study and Quality Appraisal of Clinical Guidelines.
Synthesis in Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 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
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential tools to support evidence-based nutritional care in critically ill patients; however, the methodological quality and credibility of recommendations for nutritional risk screening remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of CPGs addressing nutritional risk screening in critically ill adults and to critically appraise the evidence supporting these recommendations. A systematic search was conducted between January and April 2026 in Embase, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, Google Scholar, and guideline repositories. CPGs, consensus statements, and position papers, including nutritional risk screening recommendations for critically ill adults were eligible. Guideline quality was assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. Original studies and systematic reviews supporting nutritional risk screening recommendations were critically appraised using ROBINS-E and AMSTAR 2, respectively. Four CPGs were included. AGREE II assessment demonstrated satisfactory methodological quality overall, particularly in Scope and Purpose (84.4%) and Clarity of Presentation (92.0%), whereas Applicability showed the lowest performance (50.0%). AGREE-REX evaluation demonstrated moderate overall recommendation quality (64.8%), with the Chinese Society of Critical Care Medicine guideline presenting the highest score (77.8%). Most original studies supporting recommendations were classified as having high or very high risk of bias, and one systematic review was classified as critically low confidence. Although the included guidelines demonstrated satisfactory methodological quality, important limitations were identified regarding recommendation credibility, applicability, and evidence quality. These findings highlight the need for higher-quality evidence synthesis, transparent risk-of-bias assessment, and improved implementation strategies in future guideline development.
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.