Evidence Hub

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the prevalence of protein-energy malnutrition: associations with geographical region and sex

M. Crichton, Dana L. Craven, H. Mackay, W. Marx, M. A. E. de van der Schueren, S. Marshall

Age and Ageing, 2018

69,702 participants · 158 citations

Abstract

Background

protein-energy malnutrition is a major health concern in home-dwelling older adults, particularly in the context of an ageing population. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the prevalence of malnutrition among older adults living independently in the community according to geographical region, sampling frame, rurality and sex.

Methods

six electronic databases were searched until September 2016. Original research studies which used the Mini Nutritional Assessment, Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment or Subjective Global Assessment to determine nutrition status in community samples with a mean age of ≥65 years were critically appraised and pooled using meta-analysis. Meta-regression was used to explore predictors of malnutrition prevalence in pooled statistics with high heterogeneity.

Results

111 studies from 38 countries (n = 69,702 participants) were included. The pooled prevalence of malnutrition in the older community setting ranged from 0.8% (95% CI: 0.2-1.7%) in Northern Europe to 24.6% (95% CI: 0.0-67.9%) in South-East Asia. Of all sampling frames, participants receiving homecare services had the highest prevalence at 14.6% (95% CI: 9.9-20.0%). Malnutrition prevalence in rural communities (9.9%; 95% CI: 4.5-16.8%) was double that in urban communities (5.7%; 95% CI: 4.2-7.3%) and higher among females than males (odds ratio = 1.45 [95% CI: 1.27-1.66]; P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

the results of this review…

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: 69,702 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