ArticleFood & nutrition research2011
Cut-off scores for the Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form - Version II (MEONF-II) among hospital inpatients.
Article in Food & nutrition research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive performance of GLIM with different nutritional risk screening tools in 5-year adverse health outcomes among older hospitalized patients: a comparative study.BMC geriatrics · 2025Observational
- Sarcopenia, malnutrition, and fatigue in de Novo Parkinson's disease- support for early rehabilitation.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Factors associated with malnutrition among older people in Swedish short-term care: Poor oral health, dysphagia and mortality.International journal of dental hygiene · 2025Article
- The Prevalence of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Acute Geriatric Patients.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Inter- and intrarater reliability of Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form - version II (MEONF-II) nurse assessments among hospital inpatients.BMC nursing · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe newly developed Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form - Version II (MEONF-II) has shown promising sensitivity and specificity in relation to the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA). However, the suggested MEONF-II cut-off scores for deciding low/moderate and high risk for undernutrition (UN) (>2 and >4, respectively) have not been decided based on statistical criteria but on clinical reasoning. The objective of this study was to identify the optimal cut-off scores for the MEONF-II in relation to the well-established MNA based on statistical criteria.
designCross-sectional study.
methodsThe study included 187 patients (mean age, 77.5 years) assessed for nutritional status with the MNA (full version), and screened with the MEONF-II. The MEONF-II includes assessments of involuntary weight loss, Body Mass Index (BMI) (or calf circumference), eating difficulties, and presence of clinical signs ofUN. MEONF-II data were analysed by Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC); optimal cut-offs were identified by the Youden index (J=sensitivity+specificity-1).
resultsAccording to the MEONF-II, 41% were at moderate or high UN risk and according to the MNA, 50% were at risk or already undernourished. The suggested cut-off scores were supported by the Youden indices. The lower cut-off for MEONF-II, used to identify any level of risk for UN (>2; J=0.52) gave an overall accuracy of 76% and the AUC was 80%. The higher cut-off for identifying those with high risk for UN (>4; J=0.33) had an accuracy of 63% and the AUC was 70%.
conclusionsThe suggested MEONF-II cut-off scores were statistically supported. This improves the confidence of its clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.