Systematic review and comparative analysis of pediatric nutrition screening tools validated in Europe and Canada

• Published in: Revista de la Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Vol. 68; no. 1; pp. 14 - 23
• Main Authors: Vásquez-Cárdenas, Laura, Pinzón-Espitia, Olga Lucia
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bogota Universidad Nacional de Colombia 01.01.2020
• Subjects: Desnutrición; Hospitals; Malnutrition; Mass Screening; Medicina hospitalar; MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL; Nutrition; Pediatrics; Pediatría; Review; Revisión; Systematic review; Tamizaje masivo; Task forces; Canada; Europe; Hospitals (MeSH); Pediatrics; Mass Screening; Medicina hospitalar (DeCS); Revisión; Tamizaje masivo; Desnutrición; Review; Pediatría; Malnutrition
• ISSN: 0120-0011; 2357-3848; 2357-3848
• DOI: 10.15446/revfacmed.v68n1.73180

Introduction: Nutritional screening is a useful tool for determining the risk of hospital malnutrition; therefore, reviewing the guidelines on its use in the pediatric population is of great importance. Objective: To provide recommendations on the use of nutrition screening tools validated in Canada and Europe in the Colombian pediatric population. Materials and method: A systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA methodology. The quality of the evidence found in the review was assessed using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) tool, which was established by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination for assessing preventive actions. Results:Fifteen studies were included in the review as they met the inclusion criteria. In addition, 7 nutrition screening tools were identified (PYMS, iPYMS, PeDiSMART, PNR, STAMP, PMST and STRONGkids). According to guidelines of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the PYMS, iPYMS and STRONGkids tools simultaneously assess prognostic variables such as current nutritional status, stability, expected improvement or worsening of the condition, and the influence of the disease process in nutritional deterioration. Regarding concurrent validity, data analysis shows that PYMS, iPYMS and PMST have sensitivities >85%, and that PYMS has a specificity >85%. In terms of reproducibility, PEDISMART, STRONGkids, STAMP and PYMS have an acceptable interobserver agreement (k> 0.41). Conclusion:Based on the evidence found, which was analyzed in terms of prognostic variables, concurrent validity and reproducibility, the use of the PYMS tool in the clinical practice is suggested. In contrast, hospitals must assess the applicability of the STAMP and iPYMS tools.