Cited by 607Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyNutrition and Health in AgingDietetics, Nutrition, and Education

EuroOOPS: An international, multicentre study to implement nutritional risk screening and evaluate clinical outcome

Sorensen, Janice, Kondrup, Jens, Prokopowicz, Jacek, Schiesser, Marc, Krähenbühl, Lukas, Meier, Rémy, Liberda, Martin·2008·Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background & aims The aim of the study was to implement nutritional risk screening (NRS-2002) and to assess the association between nutritional risk and clinical outcome. Methods NRS-2002 was implemented in 26 hospital departments (surgery, internal medicine, oncology, intensive care, gastroenterology and geriatrics) in Austria, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Germany, Hungary, Lebanon, Libya, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. Being a prospective cohort study, randomly selected adult patients were included at admission and followed during their hospitalisation. Data were collected on the nutritional risk screening, complications, mortality, length of stay and discharge. The correlation between risk status and clinical outcome was assessed and adjusted for confounders (age, speciality, diagnoses, comorbidity, surgery, cancer and region) by multivariate regression analysis. Results Of the 5051 study patients, 32.6% were defined as 'at-risk' by NRS-2002. 'At-risk' patients had more complications, higher mortality and longer lengths of stay than 'not at-risk' patients and these variables were significantly related to components of NRS-2002, also when adjusted for confounders. Conclusions Components of NRS-2002 are independent predictors of poor clinical outcome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnu.2008.03.012

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Observational studies have shown the frequency of complications in untreated at-risk patients to be three times higher than in patients not at-risk, and length of hospital stay is 50% longer.

    “Observational studies have shown the frequency of complications in untreated at-risk patients to be three times higher than in patients not at-risk, and furthermore length of hospital stay (LOS) is 50% longer, which has a negative influence on clinical outcomes [18].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sorensen, J., Kondrup, J., Prokopowicz, J., Schiesser, M., Krähenbühl, L., Meier, R., & Liberda, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
  • HFR Freiburg Kantonsspital (CH)
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-06
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
340-349
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041669990
Cited by
607
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 35
FWCI
21.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Keywords
nutritional risk screening, NRS-2002, nutritional risk, clinical outcomes, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, hospital discharge, predictors of poor outcome, multicenter study
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Nutritional Status, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Cohort Studies, Weight Loss, Nutrition Assessment, Multivariate Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Hospital Mortality, Risk Assessment, Malnutrition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review