ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2014
Evaluation of adherence to a nutrition-screening programme over a 5-year period.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis of early detection of patients at nutrition risk during their hospital stay through the new screening method CIPA: a study protocol.BMC health services research · 2017Trial
- Development of the Nursing Nutritional Care Behaviors Scale (B-NNC) in Italian and Psychometric Validation of Its German Translation in Austria.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Exploring Individuals' Views and Feedback on a Nutritional Screening Mobile App: Qualitative Focus Group Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Validity of the new nutrition screening tool Control of Food Intake, Protein, and Anthropometry (CIPA) in non-surgical inpatients.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNutrition screening using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was implemented for adult patients in 2006. The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the screening programme over a 5-year period after a targeted approach to training ward staff. SUBJECTS/
methodsFollowing the implementation of MUST on 32 wards, regular audits were carried out. Data on completion rates at ward level were collected by nutrition link nurses and submitted electronically for collation.
resultsData on MUST were collected on a total of 17 876 patients during this period. Mean percentage of patients screened with a moderate or high risk of malnutrition was 19% in those screened within 24 h after admission and 28% in those screened at 7 days. Twenty percent of patients had an uncompleted MUST score at 24 h after admission and 15% were uncompleted after 7 inpatient days. After implementation, half the hospital population were being screened on admission. However, a number of wards were neither reporting the data nor completing the screening process. Following targeted training on wards, screening rates improved in 2009 and the number of patients screened improved as ward engagement increased.
conclusionAudit has been fundamental in the implementation of MUST and has allowed training, additional time and educational resources to be allocated to specific wards to facilitate improvements in screening. Lead nurse support and monitoring has improved adherence rates and facilitated an increase in the identification of patients at moderate and high risk of malnutrition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24865482What 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.