Cited by 10Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyNutrition and Health in AgingSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Nutritional risk screening and clinical outcome assessment among patients with community-acquired infection: A multicenter study in Beijing teaching hospitals

Li, Xiang-yan, Yu, Kang, Yang, Yang, Wang, Yu-fang, Li, Rong-rong, Li, Chun-wei·2016·Nutrition

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to implement nutritional risk screening in patients with community-acquired infection (CAI) and analyze its relationship with clinical outcomes. Methods We consecutively assessed 595 patients with CAI from two teaching hospitals for eligibility during this study. Their nutritional risk was evaluated using Nutritional Risk Screening-2002. The hospital length of stay (LOS), rate of readmission, and nutritional support were recorded. Results In all, 336 patients with CAI were recruited. Of these, 40.61% were at nutritional risk at admission. The prevalence of nutritional risk in those patients age ≥70 y was significantly higher than in younger patients (51.38% versus 37.29%; P = 0.017). There was significant increase in the prevalence of nutritional risk from admission to 2-wk post-admission in all patients (40.61% versus 48.93%; P = 0.036) and in elderly patients (51.38% versus 69.90%; P = 0.010). Of the at-risk patients, the LOS (19.6 ± 12.2 d versus 11.2 ± 5.3 d; P Conclusions Many patients with CAI were at nutritional risk and tended to worsen during hospitalization, which has been associated with increased LOS and rate of readmission. Nutritional support might be beneficial to the patients by shortening LOS. Inappropriate use of nutritional support was observed in patients with CAI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nut.2016.02.020

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 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?

  • Li et al. also showed a significant increase in the prevalence of nutritional risk measured by NRS 2002 within two weeks after admission (40.61% vs 48.93%; p=0.036).

    “The latter also showed a significant increase in the prevalence of nutritional risk measured by the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) within two weeks after admission (40.61% vs. 48.93%;p ¼ 0.036).”
  • Li et al. showed the same effect in patients with community acquired pneumonia.

    “The same effect was shown by Li et al. in patients with community acquired pneumonia [21] (Level of Evidence 2-).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, X.-Y., Yu, K., Yang, Y., Wang, Y.-F., Li, R.-R., & Li, C.-W.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
  • Peking University First Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
Yu, Kang
Venue
Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-10
Volume
32
Issue
10
Pages
1057-1062
ISSN
0899-9007 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2299245375
Cited by
10
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
nutritional risk screening, community-acquired infections, NRS-2002, nutritional support, length of hospital stay, hospital readmission, elderly patients, parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, clinical outcomes
MeSH terms
Beijing, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Disorders, Patient Readmission, Risk Factors, Nutrition Assessment, Treatment Outcome, Community-Acquired Infections, Nutritional Support, Young Adult

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