Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36702924›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2023

Validation of the German version of the Protein Screener 55.

Eva Kiesswetter, Hanna M Siebentritt, Daniel Schoene, Robert Kob, Ellen Freiberger, Cornel C Sieber, Marjolein Visser, Hanneke A H Wijnhoven, Dorothee Volkert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Eva KiesswetterInstitute for Biomedicine of Aging, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany. eva.kiesswetter@fau.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1721-215X
Hanna M SiebentrittInstitute for Biomedicine of Aging, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
Daniel SchoeneInstitute of Medical Physics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Robert KobInstitute for Biomedicine of Aging, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0406-092X
Ellen FreibergerInstitute for Biomedicine of Aging, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
Cornel C SieberInstitute for Biomedicine of Aging, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
Marjolein VisserDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hanneke A H WijnhovenDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dorothee VolkertInstitute for Biomedicine of Aging, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesThe Protein Screener 55 + (Pro55 + ) is a brief food questionnaire to screen older community-dwelling adults for low protein intake. The result is the predicted probability of protein intake <1.0 g/kg adjusted body weight (aBW)/d ranging from 0-1. For purposes of cross-cultural validation, we translated the Pro55+ into German and tested its discriminative accuracy in detecting low protein intake of older community-dwelling people in Germany. SUBJECTS/

methodsAfter translation and pilot-testing, the Pro55+ and the reference standard (3-day dietary record) were completed by 144 participants (81.6 ± 3.9 years, 61.8% female). Discriminative properties were tested by receiver operating characteristic curves and by calculating sensitivity and specificity for different cut-offs of predicted probability (>0.3/>0.5/>0.7) using <1.0 or <0.8 g/kg aBW/d to define low protein intake.

resultsProtein intake was <1.0 g/kg aBW/d in 39.6% of the sample and <0.8 g/kg aBW/d in 17.4%. Area under the curve was 62.0% (95%CI 52.6-71.5) and 68.8% (58.1-79.4), respectively. Specificity was 82-90% using probability cut-offs of 0.5 and 0.7 for both protein thresholds. Sensitivity was poor for protein threshold of 1.0 g/kg aBW/d regardless of the used probability cut-offs. For protein threshold of <0.8 g/kg aBW/d, sensitivity was 88.0% (71.8-96.9) using a probability cut-off of 0.09.

conclusionThe overall discriminative accuracy of the German Pro55+ to identify older community-dwelling people with low protein intake was poor. However, applying different probability cut-offs allows increasing specificity and sensitivity for 0.8 g/kg aBW/d to levels justifying the use for certain purposes e.g. excluding individuals with adequate protein intake. Further validation is needed.

Indexed as

Dietary ProteinsFemaleGermanyHumansMaleSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesDietary Proteins

Identifiers

PMID36702924
PMCPMC10169657

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.