Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32992538›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2020

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

David Franciole Oliveira Silva, Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lima, Karine Cavalcanti Mauricio Sena-Evangelista, Dirce Maria Marchioni, Ricardo Ney Cobucci, Fábia Barbosa de Andrade

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Nutrition risk assessed by Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 is associated with in-hospital mortality in older patients with COVID-19.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2022
    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

6 authors.

David Franciole Oliveira SilvaPostgraduate Program in Collective Health, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte-UFRN, Natal 59056-000, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0940-1356
Severina Carla Vieira Cunha LimaDepartment of Nutrition, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte-UFRN, Natal 59078-970, Brazil.
Karine Cavalcanti Mauricio Sena-EvangelistaDepartment of Nutrition, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte-UFRN, Natal 59078-970, Brazil.
Dirce Maria MarchioniDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo-USP, São Paulo 05410-020, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6810-5779
Ricardo Ney CobucciPostgraduate Program in Biotechnology, Potiguar University-UnP, Natal 59056-000, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0184-2061
Fábia Barbosa de AndradePostgraduate Program in Collective Health, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte-UFRN, Natal 59056-000, Brazil.

Funding

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in older people; assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants' ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the MNA-short form (MNA-sf), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), the Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity; the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss; the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in older adults with COVID-19.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusGeriatric AssessmentNutrition AssessmentAgedAged, 80 and overCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleMalnutritionMiddle AgedNutritional StatusPandemicsPneumonia, ViralReproducibility of ResultscoronavirusCOVID-19elderlymalnutritionnutritional assessmentnutritional risknutritional screening

Identifiers

PMID32992538
PMCPMC7599513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.