The effectiveness, appropriateness and feasibility of nutritional screening tools in identifying adults at risk of malnutrition in the community. A comprehensive systematic review.

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Screening

scholarly journals Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Elderly Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Franciole de Oliveira Silva ◽  
Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lima ◽  
Karine Cavalcanti Mauricio Sena-Evangelista ◽  
Dirce Marchioni ◽  
Ricardo Ney Cobucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
Nrs 2002 ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in elderly people; assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants’ ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), MNA-short form (MNA-sf), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity; the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss; the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in elderly COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1351.e13-1351.e25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M.J. Isautier ◽  
Marija Bosnić ◽  
Suey S.Y. Yeung ◽  
Marijke C. Trappenburg ◽  
Carel G.M. Meskers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Community Dwelling Older Adults

scholarly journals Development of a simple and valid nutrition screening tool for pediatric hospitalized patients with acute illness

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Hoda Atef ◽  
Rasha Abdel-Raouf ◽  
Ahmed S. Zeid ◽  
Eman H. Elsebaie ◽  
Shaimaa Abdalaleem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Computer Games ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Acute Illness ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Appetite Loss ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Watching Tv

Background: Nutritional screening, intervention and assessment in patients with undernutrition are key components of any nutritional care. The goal of any nutritional assessment is to determine the specific nutritional risk(s). Presently, there are no guidelines on any ideal screening tool to be used on admission for identification of children that are at risk of developing malnutrition during their hospital stay. The objective of the study was to develop a valid and simple nutritional screening tool which can be used on hospital admission to identify pediatric patients at risk of malnutrition. Methods: This study was cross sectional analytical that enrolled children (n:161) admitted with acute illness to the general wards at Cairo University Children Hospitals (CUCH). The answers to the developed questionnaire were compared to the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), those with high accuracy (≥80%) were used for validity with anthropometric measures. Results: In the ‘less than two years of age’ group, the simple and valid nutritional screening tools were the following questions: (Is there a problem during breast-feeding?), (Is there scanty breast milk?), (Is there appetite loss?). The simple and valid nutritional screening tools during the ‘early childhood’ group were the following questions: (Is there appetite loss?), (Is there any skipping of meals?), (Are they watching TV, videotapes and/or playing computer games for more than two hours/day?). The simple and valid  nutritional screening tools during the ‘late childhood’ group were the following questions: (Is there appetite loss?), (Are they watching TV, videotapes and/or playing computer games for more than two hours/day?). Conclusion: The simple and valid nutritional screening tools differ according to age groups. The one which is valid in all ages is the question about the appetite loss.

Nutritional risk in critically ill patients: how it is assessed, its prevalence and prognostic value: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 78 (12) ◽  
pp. 1052-1068
Author(s):  
Aline Cattani ◽  
Igor C Eckert ◽  
Júlia E Brito ◽  
Rafaela F Tartari ◽  
Flávia M Silva
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Outcome Prediction ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Protein Balance ◽  
Nrs 2002

Abstract Context Nutritional risk (NR) screening is the first step of nutrition care process. Few data are available in literature about its prevalence, nor, to our knowledge, is a universally accepted reference method for the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective The aim for this systematic review was to summarize evidence regarding the prevalence of NR and the predictive validity of different tools applied for NR screening of critically ill patients. Data Sources The PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched up to December 2019 using the subject headings related to critically ill patients and NR screening. The current systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019129668). Data Extraction Data on NR prevalence, predictive validity of nutritional screening tools, and interaction between caloric-protein balance and NR in outcome prediction were collected. Data Analysis Results were summarized qualitatively in text and tables, considering the outcomes of interest. Results From 15 669 articles initially identified, 36 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, providing data from 8 nutritional screening tools: modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (mNUTRIC; n = 26 studies) and Nutritional Risk Screening–2002 (NRS-2002; n = 7 studies) were the most frequent; the NR prevalence was 55.9% (range, 16.0% to 99.5%). Nutritional risk was a predictor of 28-day and ICU mortality in 8 studies. Interactions between caloric-protein balance and NR on outcome prediction presented were scarcely tested and presented heterogeneous results (n = 8). Conclusions Prevalence of NR in patients in the ICU varies widely; a satisfactory predictive validity was observed, especially when mNUTRIC or NRS-2002 were applied.

scholarly journals Should screening for risk of gambling-related harm be undertaken in health, care and support settings? A systematic review of the international evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay Blank ◽  
Susan Baxter ◽  
Helen Buckley Woods ◽  
Elizabeth Goyder
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Methadone Maintenance ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Care And Support ◽  
Related Harm

Abstract Background Gambling-related harm is an increasing recognised problem internationally. Recent years have seen an explosion in opportunities to gamble, both in person and online. Health and other care settings have the potential to act as screening sites to identify and support gamblers who may be at high risk of experiencing gambling-related harm. This study aimed to identify interventions to screen for risk of gambling-related harm in the general population which may be delivered in health, care and support settings. Methods Systematic review. Searches of key databases and grey sources since 2012 were undertaken in October 2019. Electronic database searches generated a total of 5826 unique hits. Nine studies published 2013–2019, along with thirteen grey literature documents met our eligibility criteria. The criteria were setting (health, care and support settings), participants (any attendee in help, care and support settings), interventions (screening to identify risk of harm from gambling behaviours) and outcome measures (gambling behaviours, service use). Results Three papers evaluating screening interventions delivered in general practice (repeat visits and written advice), mental health service (the use of screening tools to identify risk of harm), and substance abuse treatment (intensive outpatient treatment for substance use disorders or methadone maintenance) indicated evidence of potential effectiveness. Six papers supported the feasibility and acceptability of delivering interventions in various settings. Grey literature reports described the implementation of interventions such as training materials, and transfer of interventions developed for substance abuse populations by practitioners. Conclusions Health, care and support services offer potentially important contexts in which to identify and offer support to people who are at risk of gambling related harm. Screening interventions appear feasible and acceptable in a range of community and healthcare settings for those at risk of gambling harm. Evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening in these populations should therefore be prioritised.

scholarly journals Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 2956 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Franciole Oliveira Silva ◽  
Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lima ◽  
Karine Cavalcanti Mauricio Sena-Evangelista ◽  
Dirce Maria Marchioni ◽  
Ricardo Ney Cobucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
Nrs 2002 ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in older people; assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants’ ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the MNA-short form (MNA-sf), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), the Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity; the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss; the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in older adults with COVID-19.

Nutritional Screening Tools Used and Validated for Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 898-907 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nélia Pinheiro Mendes ◽  
Thalita Alves de Barros ◽  
Carla de Oliveira Barbosa Rosa ◽  
Sylvia do Carmo Castro Franceschini
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Screening
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document