Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31138579›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Screening and assessment tools for early detection of malnutrition in hospitalised children: a systematic review of validation studies.

Petra Klanjsek, Majda Pajnkihar, Natasa Marcun Varda, Petra Povalej Brzan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Exploring stakeholder experiences of dietetic service and care delivery: A systematic qualitative review.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Implementation of new indicators of pediatric malnutrition and comparison to previous indicators.International journal of pediatrics & adolescent medicine · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Petra Klanjsek *Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Majda Pajnkihar *Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Natasa Marcun Varda *Department of Paediatrics, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Petra Povalej Brzan *Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
University of Maribor · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of the present study was to identify all currently available screening and assessment tools for detection of malnutrition in hospitalised children, and to identify the most useful tools on the basis of published validation studies.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL and MEDLINE were searched up to October 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies in English that reported sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values (PPVs/NPVs) in the paediatric population were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened all of the studies identified, and extracted the data. The methodological qualities of the studies included were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

resultsThe 26 validation studies that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review used eight screening and three assessment tools. The number of participants varied from 32 to 14 477. There was considerable variability in the chosen reference standards, which prevented direct comparisons of the predictive performances of the tools. Anthropometric measurements were used as reference standards in 16 of the identified studies, and full nutritional assessment in 5. The Pediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS) screening tool performed better than Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition and Screening Tool for Risk On Nutritional status and Growth when compared in terms of anthropometric measurements, especially for body mass index (Se=90.9, Sp=81.9) and triceps skinfold thickness (Se=80.0, Sp=75.0). However, low PPVs indicated the problem of overprediction of positive cases, which was typical for all of the studies that used anthropometric measurements as the reference standard.

conclusionsThis systematic review identifies the need for definition of the gold standard for validation of screening tools. Anthropometry measurements using WHO or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts should be considered as the possible reference standard in future validation studies. We would recommend the use of PYMS for hospitalised paediatric patients without chronic conditions, in combination with full nutritional assessment. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017077477.

Indexed as

Child, HospitalizedMass ScreeningNutrition AssessmentChildChild Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaEarly DiagnosisHumansMalnutritionValidation Studies as Topicmalnutritionnutritional assessmentnutritional screeningpaediatricundernutritionvalidation

Identifiers

PMID31138579
PMCPMC6549612
OpenAlexW2947572011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.