Evidence Hub

Prevalence of protein-energy malnutrition risk in European older adults in community, residential and hospital settings, according to 22 malnutrition screening tools validated for use in adults ≥65 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis

S. Leij-Halfwerk, M. Verwijs, S. van Houdt, J. Borkent, P. R. Guaitoli, T. Pelgrim, M. Heymans, L. Power et al.

Maturitas, 2019

583,972 participants · 324 citations

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the prevalence of protein-energy malnutrition risk across different health-care settings in European older adults, using 22 malnutrition screening tools recently validated for use in older adults. Systematic searches were performed in six electronic databases (2006 through 2017). Included were studies which reported malnutrition risk in adults aged ≥65y in Europe. Frequency of high and moderate malnutrition risk for each malnutrition screening tool was collated. Meta-analyses of malnutrition risk using a random-effects model were performed where data from at least 10 study samples were available. Of 21,465 studies, 196 studies were available for data extraction, representing 223 study samples from 24 European countries and 583,972 older adults. Pooled prevalence rates of high malnutrition risk across all countries and malnutrition screening tools were 28.0% (n = 127 study samples), 17.5% (n = 30), and 8.5% (n = 32), for the hospital, residential care and community settings respectively. Using meta-regression, prevalence rates were higher in adults aged >80y (p < 0.0001), in women (p = 0.03) and in patients with one or multiple comorbidities (p < 0.0001). Prevalence rates differed by country, from 15.2% in Spain to 37.7% in Switzerland, and by screening tool, from 14.9% using MNA-SF to 40.6% using NRS-2002. In conclusion, the prevalence of high malnutrition risk in European older adults varies widely between countries and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 583,972 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free