Nutrition screening tools: Does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting
Summary Background & aims Numerous nutrition screening tools for the hospital setting have been developed. The aim of this systematic review is to study construct or criterion validity and predictive validity of nutrition screening tools for the general hospital setting. Methods A systematic rev...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Scotland), 2014-02, Vol.33 (1), p.39-58 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 58 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 39 |
container_title | Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, Marian A.E., PhD, RD Guaitoli, Patrícia Realino, RD Jansma, Elise P., MSc de Vet, Henrica C.W., PhD |
description | Summary Background & aims Numerous nutrition screening tools for the hospital setting have been developed. The aim of this systematic review is to study construct or criterion validity and predictive validity of nutrition screening tools for the general hospital setting. Methods A systematic review of English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch articles identified via MEDLINE, Cinahl and EMBASE (from inception to the 2nd of February 2012). Additional studies were identified by checking reference lists of identified manuscripts. Search terms included key words for malnutrition, screening or assessment instruments, and terms for hospital setting and adults. Data were extracted independently by 2 authors. Only studies expressing the (construct, criterion or predictive) validity of a tool were included. Results 83 studies (32 screening tools) were identified: 42 studies on construct or criterion validity versus a reference method and 51 studies on predictive validity on outcome (i.e. length of stay, mortality or complications). None of the tools performed consistently well to establish the patients' nutritional status. For the elderly, MNA performed fair to good, for the adults MUST performed fair to good. SGA, NRS-2002 and MUST performed well in predicting outcome in approximately half of the studies reviewed in adults, but not in older patients. Conclusions Not one single screening or assessment tool is capable of adequate nutrition screening as well as predicting poor nutrition related outcome. Development of new tools seems redundant and will most probably not lead to new insights. New studies comparing different tools within one patient population are required. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.04.008 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1491058525</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0261561413001088</els_id><sourcerecordid>1491058525</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-21305d88455bd1ec0b951adad40d9f519ea8b5c7956cdd447e20b499590b84443</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk1v1DAQhiMEotvCH-CAfEHikjBO7KyDUFHV8iVVcADOluNMqBdvvPU4oOXX42gXkHrgNId53pnRoymKJxwqDrx9samsn-aqBt5UICoAda9YcdnUJe9Uc79YQd3yUrZcnBSnRBsAkM1aPSxO6qZVSjV8Vdx-nFN0yYWJkY2Ik5u-sRSCp5fsKiCxMCEj9wvZ6BIz3r9mF4z2lHBrkrMs4g-HP1kY78bZGCJLN8huAu1cMp4RppTbj4oHo_GEj4_1rPj69s2Xy_fl9ad3Hy4vrksrYZ3KmjcgB6WElP3A0ULfSW4GMwgYulHyDo3qpV13srXDIMQaa-hF18kOeiWEaM6K54e5uxhuZ6Skt44sem8mDDNpLjoOUslaZrQ-oDYGooij3kW3NXGvOehFtd7oRbVeVGsQOqvOoafH-XO_xeFv5I_bDDw7Aoas8WM0k3X0j1NcQMcX7tWBw2wj24yarMPJ4uAi2qSH4P5_x_mduPVucnnjd9wjbcIcp-xZc021Bv15eYrlJ7Jf4JAv_Q1verIH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1491058525</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Nutrition screening tools: Does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, Marian A.E., PhD, RD ; Guaitoli, Patrícia Realino, RD ; Jansma, Elise P., MSc ; de Vet, Henrica C.W., PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, Marian A.E., PhD, RD ; Guaitoli, Patrícia Realino, RD ; Jansma, Elise P., MSc ; de Vet, Henrica C.W., PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Background & aims Numerous nutrition screening tools for the hospital setting have been developed. The aim of this systematic review is to study construct or criterion validity and predictive validity of nutrition screening tools for the general hospital setting. Methods A systematic review of English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch articles identified via MEDLINE, Cinahl and EMBASE (from inception to the 2nd of February 2012). Additional studies were identified by checking reference lists of identified manuscripts. Search terms included key words for malnutrition, screening or assessment instruments, and terms for hospital setting and adults. Data were extracted independently by 2 authors. Only studies expressing the (construct, criterion or predictive) validity of a tool were included. Results 83 studies (32 screening tools) were identified: 42 studies on construct or criterion validity versus a reference method and 51 studies on predictive validity on outcome (i.e. length of stay, mortality or complications). None of the tools performed consistently well to establish the patients' nutritional status. For the elderly, MNA performed fair to good, for the adults MUST performed fair to good. SGA, NRS-2002 and MUST performed well in predicting outcome in approximately half of the studies reviewed in adults, but not in older patients. Conclusions Not one single screening or assessment tool is capable of adequate nutrition screening as well as predicting poor nutrition related outcome. Development of new tools seems redundant and will most probably not lead to new insights. New studies comparing different tools within one patient population are required.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0261-5614</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-1983</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.04.008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23688831</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CLNUDP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Assessment ; Biological and medical sciences ; Construct validity ; Feeding. Feeding behavior ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Gastroenterology and Hepatology ; Hospital ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Malnutrition ; Malnutrition - diagnosis ; Nutrition Assessment ; Nutritional Status ; Predictive validity ; Screening ; Systematic review ; Validation Studies as Topic ; Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems</subject><ispartof>Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2014-02, Vol.33 (1), p.39-58</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-21305d88455bd1ec0b951adad40d9f519ea8b5c7956cdd447e20b499590b84443</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-21305d88455bd1ec0b951adad40d9f519ea8b5c7956cdd447e20b499590b84443</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561413001088$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28140911$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23688831$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, Marian A.E., PhD, RD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guaitoli, Patrícia Realino, RD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansma, Elise P., MSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vet, Henrica C.W., PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Nutrition screening tools: Does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting</title><title>Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)</title><addtitle>Clin Nutr</addtitle><description>Summary Background & aims Numerous nutrition screening tools for the hospital setting have been developed. The aim of this systematic review is to study construct or criterion validity and predictive validity of nutrition screening tools for the general hospital setting. Methods A systematic review of English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch articles identified via MEDLINE, Cinahl and EMBASE (from inception to the 2nd of February 2012). Additional studies were identified by checking reference lists of identified manuscripts. Search terms included key words for malnutrition, screening or assessment instruments, and terms for hospital setting and adults. Data were extracted independently by 2 authors. Only studies expressing the (construct, criterion or predictive) validity of a tool were included. Results 83 studies (32 screening tools) were identified: 42 studies on construct or criterion validity versus a reference method and 51 studies on predictive validity on outcome (i.e. length of stay, mortality or complications). None of the tools performed consistently well to establish the patients' nutritional status. For the elderly, MNA performed fair to good, for the adults MUST performed fair to good. SGA, NRS-2002 and MUST performed well in predicting outcome in approximately half of the studies reviewed in adults, but not in older patients. Conclusions Not one single screening or assessment tool is capable of adequate nutrition screening as well as predicting poor nutrition related outcome. Development of new tools seems redundant and will most probably not lead to new insights. New studies comparing different tools within one patient population are required.</description><subject>Assessment</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Construct validity</subject><subject>Feeding. Feeding behavior</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Gastroenterology and Hepatology</subject><subject>Hospital</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Malnutrition</subject><subject>Malnutrition - diagnosis</subject><subject>Nutrition Assessment</subject><subject>Nutritional Status</subject><subject>Predictive validity</subject><subject>Screening</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Validation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems</subject><issn>0261-5614</issn><issn>1532-1983</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kk1v1DAQhiMEotvCH-CAfEHikjBO7KyDUFHV8iVVcADOluNMqBdvvPU4oOXX42gXkHrgNId53pnRoymKJxwqDrx9samsn-aqBt5UICoAda9YcdnUJe9Uc79YQd3yUrZcnBSnRBsAkM1aPSxO6qZVSjV8Vdx-nFN0yYWJkY2Ik5u-sRSCp5fsKiCxMCEj9wvZ6BIz3r9mF4z2lHBrkrMs4g-HP1kY78bZGCJLN8huAu1cMp4RppTbj4oHo_GEj4_1rPj69s2Xy_fl9ad3Hy4vrksrYZ3KmjcgB6WElP3A0ULfSW4GMwgYulHyDo3qpV13srXDIMQaa-hF18kOeiWEaM6K54e5uxhuZ6Skt44sem8mDDNpLjoOUslaZrQ-oDYGooij3kW3NXGvOehFtd7oRbVeVGsQOqvOoafH-XO_xeFv5I_bDDw7Aoas8WM0k3X0j1NcQMcX7tWBw2wj24yarMPJ4uAi2qSH4P5_x_mduPVucnnjd9wjbcIcp-xZc021Bv15eYrlJ7Jf4JAv_Q1verIH</recordid><startdate>20140201</startdate><enddate>20140201</enddate><creator>van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, Marian A.E., PhD, RD</creator><creator>Guaitoli, Patrícia Realino, RD</creator><creator>Jansma, Elise P., MSc</creator><creator>de Vet, Henrica C.W., PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140201</creationdate><title>Nutrition screening tools: Does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting</title><author>van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, Marian A.E., PhD, RD ; Guaitoli, Patrícia Realino, RD ; Jansma, Elise P., MSc ; de Vet, Henrica C.W., PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-21305d88455bd1ec0b951adad40d9f519ea8b5c7956cdd447e20b499590b84443</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Assessment</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Construct validity</topic><topic>Feeding. Feeding behavior</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Gastroenterology and Hepatology</topic><topic>Hospital</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Malnutrition</topic><topic>Malnutrition - diagnosis</topic><topic>Nutrition Assessment</topic><topic>Nutritional Status</topic><topic>Predictive validity</topic><topic>Screening</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Validation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, Marian A.E., PhD, RD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guaitoli, Patrícia Realino, RD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansma, Elise P., MSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vet, Henrica C.W., PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, Marian A.E., PhD, RD</au><au>Guaitoli, Patrícia Realino, RD</au><au>Jansma, Elise P., MSc</au><au>de Vet, Henrica C.W., PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Nutrition screening tools: Does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting</atitle><jtitle>Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Nutr</addtitle><date>2014-02-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>39</spage><epage>58</epage><pages>39-58</pages><issn>0261-5614</issn><eissn>1532-1983</eissn><coden>CLNUDP</coden><abstract>Summary Background & aims Numerous nutrition screening tools for the hospital setting have been developed. The aim of this systematic review is to study construct or criterion validity and predictive validity of nutrition screening tools for the general hospital setting. Methods A systematic review of English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch articles identified via MEDLINE, Cinahl and EMBASE (from inception to the 2nd of February 2012). Additional studies were identified by checking reference lists of identified manuscripts. Search terms included key words for malnutrition, screening or assessment instruments, and terms for hospital setting and adults. Data were extracted independently by 2 authors. Only studies expressing the (construct, criterion or predictive) validity of a tool were included. Results 83 studies (32 screening tools) were identified: 42 studies on construct or criterion validity versus a reference method and 51 studies on predictive validity on outcome (i.e. length of stay, mortality or complications). None of the tools performed consistently well to establish the patients' nutritional status. For the elderly, MNA performed fair to good, for the adults MUST performed fair to good. SGA, NRS-2002 and MUST performed well in predicting outcome in approximately half of the studies reviewed in adults, but not in older patients. Conclusions Not one single screening or assessment tool is capable of adequate nutrition screening as well as predicting poor nutrition related outcome. Development of new tools seems redundant and will most probably not lead to new insights. New studies comparing different tools within one patient population are required.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>23688831</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.clnu.2013.04.008</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0261-5614 |
ispartof | Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2014-02, Vol.33 (1), p.39-58 |
issn | 0261-5614 1532-1983 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1491058525 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Assessment Biological and medical sciences Construct validity Feeding. Feeding behavior Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Gastroenterology and Hepatology Hospital Hospitalization Humans Malnutrition Malnutrition - diagnosis Nutrition Assessment Nutritional Status Predictive validity Screening Systematic review Validation Studies as Topic Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems |
title | Nutrition screening tools: Does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T17%3A50%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nutrition%20screening%20tools:%20Does%20one%20size%20fit%20all?%20A%20systematic%20review%20of%20screening%20tools%20for%20the%20hospital%20setting&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20nutrition%20(Edinburgh,%20Scotland)&rft.au=van%20Bokhorst-de%20van%20der%20Schueren,%20Marian%20A.E.,%20PhD,%20RD&rft.date=2014-02-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=39&rft.epage=58&rft.pages=39-58&rft.issn=0261-5614&rft.eissn=1532-1983&rft.coden=CLNUDP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.clnu.2013.04.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1491058525%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1491058525&rft_id=info:pmid/23688831&rft_els_id=S0261561413001088&rfr_iscdi=true |