Abstract:Summary Backgrounds & aims Malnutrition is prevalent among hospitalized patients in developed countries, contributing to negative health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Timely identification and management of malnutrition are crucial. The lack of a universally accepted definition and standardized diagnostic criteria for malnutrition has led to the development of various screening tools, each with varying validity. This complicates early identification of malnutrition, hindering effective intervention strategies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the most valid and reliable nutritional screening tool for assessing the risk of malnutrition in hospitalized adults. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify validation studies published from inception to November 2023, in the Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases. This systematic review was registered in INPLASY (INPLASY202090028). The risk of bias and quality of included studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2). Meta-analyses were performed for screening tools accuracy using the symmetric hierarchical summary receiver operative characteristics models. Results Of the 1646 articles retrieved, 60 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review, and 21 were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 51 malnutrition risk screening tools and 9 reference standards were identified. The meta-analyses assessed four common malnutrition risk screening tools against two reference standards (Subjective Global Assessment [SGA] and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism [ESPEN] criteria). The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) vs SGA had a sensitivity (95% Confidence Interval) of 0.84 (0.73–0.91), and specificity of 0.85 (0.75–0.91). The MUST vs ESPEN had a sensitivity of 0.97 (0.53–0.99) and specificity of 0.80 (0.50–0.94). The Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) vs SGA had a sensitivity of 0.81 (0.67–0.90) and specificity of 0.79 (0.72–0.74). The Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) vs ESPEN had a sensitivity of 0.99 (0.41–0.99) and specificity of 0.60 (0.45–0.73). The Nutrition Universal Screening Tool-2002 (NRS-2002) vs SGA had a sensitivity of 0.76 (0.58–0.87) and specificity of 0.86 (0.76–0.93). Conclusions The MUST demonstrated high accuracy in detecting malnutrition risk in hospitalized adults. However, the quality of the studies included varied greatly, possibly introducing bias in the results. Future research should compare tools within a specific patient population using a valid and universal gold standard to ensure improved patient care and outcomes.

Identifying nutrition risk in emergency patients: What is the most appropriate screening tool?

A longitudinal study to determine if all critically ill patients should be considered at nutrition risk or is there a highly accurate screening tool to be adopted?

Screening for malnutrition in emergency laparotomy patients: a comparison of three tools

Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 As A Nutritional Risk Screening Method in Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated with Radiation Therapy

Complementarity of nutrition screening with Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria for diagnosing malnutrition in critically ill patients: A comparison study of Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill Score

Validity of nutrition screening tools for risk of malnutrition among hospitalized adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Derivation of the Screening of Nutritional Risk in Intensive Care risk prediction score: A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study

Application of Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 in China

Prevalence of nutritional risk and malnutrition in hospitalized patients: a retrospective, cross-sectional study of single-day screening

Efficiency of a Technology-Assisted Nutritional Screening System: A Retrospective Analysis of 11,722 Admissions in a Tertiary Hospital

Selection and Optimization of Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Esophageal Cancer Patients in China.

Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill Versus the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002: Are They Comparable for Assessing Risk of Malnutrition in Critically Ill Patients?

NRS-2002 for pre-treatment nutritional risk screening and nutritional status assessment in head and neck cancer patients

Prospective validation of five malnutrition screening and assessment instruments among medical inpatients: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

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

Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 for Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nutritional Risk, Malnutrition (undernutrition), Overweight, Obesity and Nutrition Support among Hospitalized Patients in Beijing Teaching Hospitals

Clinical Significance of Nutritional Risk Screening for Older Adult Patients with COVID-19

A Narrative Review Comparing Nutritional Screening Tools in Outpatient Management of Cancer Patients

Prognostic Performance of the NRS2002, NUTRIC, and Modified NUTRIC to Identify High Nutritional Risk in Severe Acute Pancreatitis Patients

Modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill is an Effective Nutrition Risk Screening Tool in Severely Burned Patients, Compared with Nutrition Risk Screening 2002