Nutrition screening tools: Does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting

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. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism

Cancer Cachexia: Identification by Clinical Assessment versus International Consensus Criteria in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Background: Cancer cachexia is associated with poorer outcomes and is often diagnosed by the Fearon criteria. Oncologists clinically identify cachexia based on a patient’s presentation. In this study agreement between these identification methods was evaluated and associations with outcomes were studied in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: Fearon criteria comprised weight loss >5% OR weight loss >2% with either BMI <20 kg/m2 or sarcopenia (determined by CT-imaging). Clinical assessment by the oncologist was based on the patient’s clinical presentation. Agreement was tested with Kappa. Associations with treatment tolerance and progression free survival (PFS) were tested with logistic regressions and Cox proportional hazards, respectively. Results: Of 69 patients, 52% was identified as cachectic according to Fearon criteria and 9% according to clinical assessment. Agreement between both methods was slight (Kappa 0.049, P = 0.457). Clinically cachectic patients had a shorter PFS than clinically non-cachectic patients (HR 3.310, P = 0.016). No other differences in outcomes were found between cachectic vs. non-cachectic patients using both methods. Conclusions: The agreement between cancer cachexia identification by clinical assessment vs. Fearon criteria was slight. Further improvement of cachexia criteria is necessary to identify cachectic patients at risk of poorer outcomes, who may benefit from targeted cachexia interventions

A Systematic Review of Malnutrition Screening Tools for the Nursing Home Setting

Rationale: Malnutrition screening among nursing home residents is often performed with tools developed for use among older subjects, and sometimes with tools designed for an adult population. Only a few tools have been designed specifically for the nursing home setting. This systematic review assesses the criterion and predictive validity of malnutrition screening tools used in nursing homes. Methods: The databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched on January 30, 2013, for manuscripts including search terms for malnutrition, screening or assessment tools, and setting. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they expressed criterion validity (how well can a tool assess nutritional status) or predictive validity (how well can a tool predict clinical outcome) of malnutrition screening tools in a nursing home population. Included were articles that had been published in the English, German, French, Dutch, Spanish, or Portuguese language. Results: The search yielded 8313 references. Of these, 24 met the inclusion criteria and were available; 2 extra manuscripts were retrieved by reference checking. Twenty tools were identified. Seventeen studies reported on criterion validity, and 9 on predictive validity. Four of the tools had been designed specifically for use in long term care. None of the tools, not even the ones specifically designed for the nursing home setting, performed (on average) better than "fair" in either assessing the residents' nutritional status or in predicting malnutrition-related outcomes. Conclusion: The use of existing screening tools for the nursing home population carries limitations, as none performs better than "fair" in assessing nutritional status or in predicting outcome. Also, no superior tool can be pointed out. This systematic review implies that further considerations regarding malnutrition screening among nursing home residents are required. © 2014 American Medical Directors Association, Inc