These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Author: Isautier JMJ, Bosnić M, Yeung SSY, Trappenburg MC, Meskers CGM, Whittaker AC, Maier AB.
    Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc; 2019 Oct; 20(10):1351.e13-1351.e25. PubMed ID: 31409560.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the validity of nutritional screening tools to detect the risk of malnutrition in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017072703). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane using the combined terms "malnutrition," "aged," "community-dwelling," and "screening." The time frame of the literature reviewed was from January 1, 2001, to May 18, 2018. Older community-dwellers were defined as follows: individuals with a mean/median age of >65 years who were community-dwellers or attended hospital outpatient clinics and day hospitals. All nutritional screening tools that were validated in community-dwelling older adults against a reference standard to detect the risk of malnutrition, or with malnutrition, were included. MEASURES: Meta-analyses were performed on the diagnostic accuracy of identified nutritional screening tools validated against the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Long Form (MNA-LF). The symmetric hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models were used to estimate test performance. RESULTS: Of 7713 articles, 35 articles were included in the systematic review, and 9 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Seventeen nutritional screening tools and 10 reference standards were identified. The meta-analyses showed average sensitivities and specificities of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.99) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.85-0.99) for the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF; cutoff point ≤11), 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.89) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.86-0.89) for the MNA-SF-V1 (MNA-SF using body mass index, cutoff point ≤11), 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.89) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.87) for the MNA-SF-V2 (MNA-SF using calf circumference instead of body mass, cutoff point ≤11), respectively, using MNA-LF as the reference standard. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The MNA-SF, MNA-SF-V1, and MNA-SF-V2 showed good sensitivity and specificity to detect community-dwelling older adults at risk of malnutrition validated against the MNA-LF. Clinicians should consider the use of the cutoff point ≤11 on the MNA-SF, MNA-SF-V1, and MNA-SF-V2 to identify community-dwelling older adults at risk of malnutrition.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]