SynthesisEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Outcomes and other characteristics of the nutritional screening and assessment tools validation processes in hospitalized adults: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospital malnutrition has been studied for decades; however, its prevalence remains high, and research in this area is still relevant. Nutritional screening and assessment tools are routinely used in hospital settings.
objectiveWe aimed to describe and discuss the general characteristics of studies that used nutritional screening and assessment instruments in hospitalized adult populations, with a focus on clinical outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review without meta-analysis. Eligible studies were original prospective or retrospective studies published in Portuguese or English, with no inception date, conducted in hospitalized adult populations, and reporting clinical outcomes. Information sources included PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. The search covered articles published up to July 2022. Risk of bias was assessed for all included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Results presented in the tables were transcribed from the main findings of each evaluated study, and no new statistical analyses were performed.
resultsSeventy-seven studies were included, encompassing 20 tools evaluated in hospital settings. The Mini Nutritional Assessment was the most extensively tested in relation to clinical outcomes. Among studies conducted in Brazilian populations, the nutritional assessment tool Subjective Global Assessment and the screening tool Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 were the most frequently studied. Among full-text articles assessed for tool evaluation in hospitals, 77% were excluded because clinical outcomes were not reported. DISCUSSION: The evidence has some limitations. First, the exclusive focus on hospitalized populations may limit generalizability. Second, validation studies that did not evaluate clinical outcomes were not described in detail. Third, the use of "clinical outcomes" as a search term may have led to an underestimation of validation studies focusing solely on diagnostic or screening performance. Overall, nutritional screening and assessment tools commonly used in daily practice have been validated many years ago, largely based on subjective clinical assessments, with relatively few studies reporting clinical outcomes. In addition, most studies were single-center and conducted predominantly in non-Latin American populations. Future research should prioritize multicenter designs, improve population representativeness, and incorporate clinically relevant outcomes. PROSPERO DATABASE REGISTRATION: ID CRD42022347507.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.