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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Scotland), 2014-02, Vol.33 (1), p.39-58
Hauptverfasser: 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
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 &amp; 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28140911$$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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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