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

BACKGROUND: The emergency department (ED) is the most frequent access route to the hospital. Nutrition risk (NR) screening allows the early identification of patients at risk of malnutrition. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and predictive validity of five different tools in EDs: Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Nutritional Risk Emergency 2017 (NRE-2017), Royal Free Hospital-Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT), Malnutrition Universal Screening (MUST), and Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST). METHODS: Patients with scores ≥3 according to the NRS-2002, ≥1.5 according to the NRE-2017, and ≥2 according to the MUST, RFH-NPT, or MST were classified with NR. Prolonged length of stay (LOS) and 1-year mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: 431 patients were evaluated (57.31 ± 15.6 years of age; 54.4% women) in a public hospital in southern Brazil. The prevalence of NR was: 35% according to the NRS-2002, 43% according to the MST, 45% according to the NRE-2017 and MUST, and 49% according to the RFH-NPT. Patients with NR, had a greater risk of prolonged LOS (P < 0.001). The presence of NR was associated with an increased risk of 1-year mortality according to the NRS-2002 (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.04; 95% CI, 2.513-6.503), MST (HR: 2.60; 95% CI, 1.701-3.996), NRE-2017 (HR: 4.82; 95% CI, 2.753-8.443), MUST (HR: 4.00; 95% CI, 2.385-6.710), and RFH-NPT (HR: 5.43; 95% CI, 2.984-9.907). CONCLUSIONS: NRE-2017 does not require objective data and presented predictive validity for all outcomes assessed, regardless of the severity of the disease, and thus appears to be the most appropriate tool for carrying out NR screening in the ED.

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.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Critical illness induces hypermetabolism and hypercatabolism, increasing nutrition risk (NR). Early NR identification is crucial for improving outcomes. We assessed four nutrition screening tools (NSTs) complementarity with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria in critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative study using data from a cohort involving five intensive care units (ICUs), screening patients for NR using NRS-2002 and modified-NUTRIC tools, with three cutoffs (≥3, ≥4, ≥5), and malnutrition diagnosed by GLIM criteria. Our outcomes of interest included ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and ICU readmission. We examined accuracy metrics and complementarity between NSTs and GLIM criteria about clinical outcomes through logistic regression and Cox regression. We established a four-category independent variable: NR(-)/GLIM(-) as the reference, NR(-)/GLIM(+), NR(+)/GLIM(-), and NR(+)/GLIM(+). RESULTS: Of the 377 patients analyzed (median age 64 years [interquartile range: 54-71] and 53.8% male), NR prevalence varied from 87% to 40.6%, whereas 64% presented malnutrition (GLIM criteria). NRS-2002 (score ≥4) showed superior accuracy for GLIM-based malnutrition. Multivariate analysis revealed mNUTRIC(+)/GLIM(+) increased >2 times in the likelihood of ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, and ICU readmission compared with the reference group. CONCLUSION: No NST exhibited satisfactory complementarity to the GLIM criteria in our study, emphasizing the necessity for comprehensive nutrition assessment for all patients, irrespective of NR status. We recommend using mNUTRIC if the ICU team opts for nutrition screening, as it demonstrated superior prognostic value compared with NRS-2002, and applying GLIM criteria in all patients.

Validity of the GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: A multicenter study on the diagnostic performance of different indicators of reduced muscle mass and disease severity.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the concurrent and predictive validity of different combinations of Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria in patients with colorectal cancer considering different indicators of reduced muscle mass (MM) and the effects of the disease. METHODS: A secondary analysis with patients with colorectal cancer. The reduced MM was assessed by arm muscle area, arm muscle circumference, calf circumference, fat-free mass index, skeletal muscle index (SMI) and skeletal muscle. Cancer diagnosis or disease staging (TNM) was considered for the etiologic criterion referred to as the effect of the disease. The other phenotypic and etiologic criteria were also evaluated, and we analyzed 13 GLIM combinations. Concurrent validity between GLIM criteria and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment was evaluated. Logistic and Cox regression were used in the predictive validation. RESULTS: For concurrent validity (n = 208), most GLIM combinations (n = 6; 54.5%) presented a moderate agreement with Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment and none showed satisfactory sensitivity and specificity (>80%). Reduced MM evaluated by SMI and SMI were present in the GLIM combinations associated with postoperative complications (odds ratio, ≥2.0), independent of other phenotypic and etiologic criteria. The combinations with reduced MM considering any method and fixed phenotypic criteria and TNM were associated with mortality (hazard ratio, ≥2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory concurrent validity was not verified. The GLIM diagnosis of malnutrition was associated with postoperative complications and mortality.

Remote nutrition care during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic: Did it impact nutrition therapy goals?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nutrition societies recommended remote hospital nutrition care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the pandemic's impact on nutrition care quality is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the association between remote nutrition care during the first COVID-19 wave and the time to start and achieve the nutrition therapy (NT) goals of critically ill patients. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted in an intensive care unit (ICU) that assisted patients with COVID-19 between May 2020 and April 2021. The remote nutrition care lasted approximately 6 months, and dietitians prescribed the nutrition care based on medical records and daily telephone contact with nurses who were in direct contact with patients. Data were retrospectively collected, patients were grouped according to the nutrition care delivered (remote or in person), and we compared the time to start NT and achieve the nutrition goals. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-eight patients (61.5 ± 14.8 years, 57% male) were evaluated, and 54.4% received remote nutrition care. The median time to start NT was 1 (1-3) day and to achieve the nutrition goals was 4 (3-6) days for both groups. The percentage of energy and protein prescribed on day 7 of the ICU stay concerning the requirements did not differ between patients with remote and patients with in-person nutrition care [95.5% ± 20.4% × 92.1% ± 26.4% (energy) and 92.9% ± 21.9% × 86.9% ± 29.2% (protein); P > 0.05 for both analyses]. CONCLUSION: Remote nutrition care in patients critically ill with COVID-19 did not impact the time to start and achieve the NT goals.

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

BACKGROUND: For patients who are critically ill, the recommended nutrition risk screening tools are the Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (NUTRIC) and the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) have limitations. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new screening tool, the Screening of Nutritional Risk in Intensive Care (SCREENIC score), and assess its predictive validity. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study was conducted. Variables from several nutritional screening and assessment tools were considered. The high nutrition risk cutoff point was defined using mNUTRIC as a reference. Predictive validity was evaluated using logistic regression and Cox regression. RESULTS: The study included 450 patients (64 [54-71] years, 52.2% men). The SCREENIC score comprised six questions: (1) does the patient have ≥2 comorbidities (1.3 points); (2) was the patient hospitalized for ≥2 days before intensive care unit (ICU) admission (0.9 points); (3) does the patient have sepsis (1.0 point); (4) was the patient on mechanical ventilation upon ICU admission (1.2 points); (5) is the patient aged >65 years (1.2 points); and (6) does the patient exhibit signs of moderate/severe muscle mass loss according to the physical exam (0.6 points). The high nutrition risk cutoff point was set at 4.0. SCREENIC demonstrated moderate agreement (κ = 0.564) and high accuracy (0.896 [95% CI, 0.867-0.925]) with mNUTRIC. It predicted prolonged ICU (odds ratio [OR] = 1.81 [95% CI, 1.14-2.85]) and hospital stay (OR = 2.15 [95% CI, 1.37-3.38]). CONCLUSION: The SCREENIC score comprises questions with variables that do not require nutrition history. Further evaluation of its applicability, reproducibility, and validity in guiding nutrition therapy is needed using large external cohorts.

Absence of association between low calf circumference, adjusted or not for adiposity, and ICU mortality in critically ill adults: A secondary analysis of a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite its correlation with skeletal muscle mass and its predictive value for adverse outcomes in clinical settings, calf circumference is a metric underexplored in intensive care. We aimed to determine whether adjusting low calf circumference for adiposity provides prognostic value superior to its unadjusted measurement for intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and other clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a cohort study across five ICUs, we assessed critically ill patients within 24 h of ICU admission. We adjusted calf circumference for body mass index (BMI) (25-29.9, 30-39.9, and ≥40) by subtracting 3, 7, or 12 cm from it, respectively. Values ≤34 cm for men and ≤33 cm for women identified low calf circumference. RESULTS: We analyzed 325 patients. In the primary risk-adjusted analysis, the ICU death risk was similar between the low and preserved calf circumference (BMI-adjusted) groups (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.47-1.73). Low calf circumference (unadjusted) increased the odds of ICU readmission 2.91 times (95% CI, 1.40-6.05). Every 1-cm increase in calf circumference as a continuous variable reduced ICU readmission odds by 12%. Calf circumference showed no significant association with other clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: BMI-adjusted calf circumference did not exhibit independent associations with ICU and in-hospital death, nor with ICU and in-hospital length of stay, compared with its unadjusted measurement. However, low calf circumference (unadjusted and BMI-adjusted) was independently associated with ICU readmission, mainly when analyzed as a continuous variable.

Independent and joint association of sarcopenia and frailty with mortality in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a cohort study with prospective data collection.

PURPOSE: Sarcopenia and frailty are associated with mortality in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer. However, it is unclear if there is an additional risk when both are present. This study aimed to investigate the independent and overlapping of sarcopenia and frailty with mortality in this population. METHODS: A prospective cohort study including older patients (≥ 60 years old) with gastrointestinal cancer. Sarcopenia was defined by the EWGSP2 criteria: (i) low muscle strength (handgrip test), (ii) low muscle mass (skeletal muscle index), and/or low muscle quality (skeletal muscle radiodensity) by computed tomography. Frailty was defined according to Fried phenotype (at least three of the five components): (i) low muscle strength (handgrip test), (ii) unintentional weight loss, (iii) self-reported exhaustion, (iv) low physical activity, and (v) low gait speed. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess overall survival rates and risk of mortality. RESULTS: We evaluated 179 patients with gastrointestinal cancer [68.0 (61.0-75.0) years old; 45% women]. The prevalence of sarcopenia, frailty, and sarcopenia-frailty was 32.9% (n = 59), 59.2% (n = 106), and 24.6% (n = 44), respectively. The incidence of mortality was 27.9% (n = 50) over a 23-month (IQR, 10, 28) period. There was an association of sarcopenia (HR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.03-3.06) with mortality, but no association was found of frailty and the outcome. Sarcopenia-frailty was associated with the highest risk of mortality (HR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.27-3.92). CONCLUSION: Sarcopenic-frail older patients with gastrointestinal cancer have a higher risk of mortality than those with sarcopenia or frailty alone, which reinforces the importance of assessing both conditions in oncology clinical care.

Feasibility and criterion validity of the GLIM criteria in the critically ill: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and validity of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This was a cohort study involving critically ill patients. Diagnoses of malnutrition by the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and GLIM criteria within 24 h after ICU admission were prospectively performed. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge to assess the hospital/ICU length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation duration, ICU readmission, and hospital/ICU mortality. Three months after discharge, the patients were contacted to record outcomes (readmission and death). Agreement and accuracy tests and regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: GLIM criteria could be applied to 377 (83.7%) of 450 patients (64 [54-71] years old, 52.2% men). Malnutrition prevalence was 47.8% (n = 180) by SGA and 65.5% (n = 247) by GLIM criteria, presenting an area under the curve equal to 0.835 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.790-0.880), sensitivity of 96.6%, and specificity of 70.3%. Malnutrition by GLIM criteria increased the odds of prolonged ICU LOS by 1.75 times (95% CI, 1.08-2.82) and ICU readmission by 2.66 times (95% CI, 1.15-6.14). Malnutrition by SGA also increased the odds of ICU readmission and the risk of ICU and hospital death more than twice. CONCLUSION: The GLIM criteria were highly feasible and presented high sensitivity, moderate specificity, and substantial agreement with the SGA in critically ill patients. It was an independent predictor of prolonged ICU LOS and ICU readmission, but it was not associated with death such as malnutrition diagnosed by SGA.

The association between reduced calf and mid-arm circumferences and ICU mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with COVID-19 are at a high risk of malnutrition caused by inflammatory syndrome and persistent hypermetabolism, which may affect clinical outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the changes in nutritional status indicators between two time points of nutritional assessments of COVID-19 patients during their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Moreover, the study also assessed the association of nutritional status with ICU mortality. METHODS: This cohort study included retrospective data of adult patients admitted to a public hospital ICU in southern Brazil, between March and September 2020. These participants with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis received nutritional assessment within the first 72 h after ICU admission. The anthropometric measurements collected included mid-arm circumference (MAC) and calf circumference (CC). The percentage (%) of MAC adequacy was calculated, and values < 50th percentile for sex and age were considered low. CC values of ≤33 cm for women and ≤34 cm for men were indicative of reduced muscle mass. Data on the date of discharge from the ICU and mortality outcome were collected. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were included (53.4% men, 62.2 ± 13.9 years of age, SOFA severity score 9.6 ± 3.5). Of these, 22.7 and 39.1% had reduced MAC and CC at ICU admission, respectively. In these participants, weight, MAC, CC, and % MAC decreased significantly from the first to second nutritional assessment (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between survivors and non-survivors. Patients with reduced CC (HR = 2.63; 95% CI 1.65-4.18) or reduced MAC (HR = 2.11; 95% CI 1.37-3.23) at the first nutritional assessment had approximately twice the risk of death in the ICU than those with normal CC and normal MAC, regardless of the severity assessed by the SOFA score and age. CONCLUSION: Reduced MAC and CC values were identified in approximately 20 and 40% of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, respectively. Additionally, these indicators of nutritional depletion were associated with an approximately 2-fold increase in the risk of ICU mortality. A significant reduction in anthropometric indicators during the first weeks of ICU stay confirmed the deterioration of nutritional status in these patients, although this was not associated with mortality.

Prognostic value of different cut-off points of the NRS-2002 tool to identify nutritional risk in critically ill patients: a longitudinal study.

The American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition recommends nutritional risk (NR) screening in critically ill patients with Nutritional Risk Screening - 2002 (NRS-2002) ≥ 3 as NR and ≥ 5 as high NR. The present study evaluated the predictive validity of different NRS-2002 cut-off points in intensive care unit (ICU). A prospective cohort study was conducted with adult patients who were screened using the NRS-2002. Hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital and ICU mortality, and ICU readmission were evaluated as outcomes. Logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic value of NRS-2002, and a receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed to determine the best cut-off point for NRS-2002. 374 patients (61·9 ± 14·3 years, 51·1 % males) were included in the study. Of these, 13·1 % were classified as without NR, 48·9 % and 38·0 % were classified as NR and high NR, respectively. An NRS-2002 score of ≥ 5 was associated with prolonged hospital LOS. The best cut-off point for NRS-2002 was a score ≥ 4, which was associated with prolonged hospital LOS (OR = 2·13; 95 % CI: 1·39, 3·28), ICU readmission (OR = 2·44; 95 % CI: 1·14, 5·22), ICU (HR = 2·91; 95 % CI: 1·47, 5·78) and hospital mortality (HR = 2·01; 95 % CI: 1·24, 3·25), but not with ICU prolonged LOS (P = 0·688). NRS-2002 ≥ 4 presented the most satisfactory predictive validity and should be considered in the ICU setting. Future studies should confirm the cut-off point and its validity in predicting nutrition therapy interaction with outcomes.

Prone position, time to reach nutrition target, and energy/protein achievement rate on the seventh day of intensive care unit stay in patients with COVID-19: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the mean time to reach the energy (EAR) and protein (PAR) achievement rate among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who did or did not undergo prone position (PP) therapy in the first week of their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and the interaction of these nutrition therapy indicators on the association between PP and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This cohort study used retrospective data collected from medical records of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU (≥18 years). We collected nutrition data, clinical information, prescription of PP, and its frequency during the first week, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: PP therapy was administered to 75.2% of 153 patients (61.5 ± 14.8 years, 57.6% males) during the first week of their ICU stay. Patients who underwent PP reached nutrition therapy goals later (4 [3-6] vs 3 [2-4] days; P = 0.030) and had lower EAR (91.9 ± 25.7 vs 101.6 ± 84.0; P = 0.002) and PAR (88.0 ± 27.7 vs 98.1 ± 13.5; P = 0.009) in comparison to those who did not receive PP. Grouping patients who underwent PP according to the EAR (≥70% or <70%) did not show any differences in the incidence of ICU death, duration of mechanical ventilation, or ICU stay (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study, PP was associated with a delayed time to reach the nutrition target and the lowest EAR and estimated protein requirement on the seventh day of ICU stay in patients with COVID-19. Permissive enteral nutrition prescription in patients who underwent PP was not associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Quality appraisal of clinical nutrition practice guidelines for critically ill adult patients: a systematic review using the Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care instrument II (AGREE-II) and AGREE-Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX).

Nutritional therapy should follow evidence-based practice, thus several societies regarding nutrition and critical care have developed specific Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). However, to be regarded as trustworthy, the quality of the CPG for critically ill patients and its recommendations need to be high. This systematic review aimed to appraise the methodology and recommendations of nutrition CPG for critically ill patients. We performed a systematic review (protocol number CRD42020184199) with literature search conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and other four specific databases of guidelines up to October 2021. Two reviewers, independently, assessed titles and abstracts and potentially eligible full-text reports to determine eligibility and subsequently four reviewers appraised the guidelines quality using the Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care instrument II (AGREE-II) and AGREE-Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX). Ten CPG for nutrition in critically ill patients were identified. Only Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine had a total acceptable quality and were recommended for daily practice according AGREE-II. None of the CPG recommendations had an overall quality score above 70 %, thus being classified as moderate quality according AGREE-REX. The methodological evaluation of the critically ill adult patient CPG revealed significant discrepancies and showed a need for improvement in its development and/or reporting. In addition, recommendations about nutrition care process presented a moderate quality.

Association of reduced BMI, length of hospital stay, mortality, and malnutrition diagnosis in patients with acute exacerbation COPD: A secondary analysis of a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) presents prognostic value in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and despite its limitations in capturing malnutrition, its use is common to assess nutritional status. We aimed to confirm the association between BMI and in-hospital outcomes in acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) and its inaccuracy in diagnosing malnutrition. METHODS: We diagnosed malnutrition using the Subjective global assessment (SGA), Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics-American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (AND-ASPEN), and two cutoff values for reduced BMI (age-related and ≤ 21.0). BMI accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve and SGA and AND-ASPEN as references. We evaluated in-hospital mortality and hospital stay outcomes and constructed logistic regression models. RESULTS: The median hospital stay was 11 (7-18) days, and 7.5% of patients died. Malnutrition prevalence according to BMI, SGA, and AND-ASPEN was 21.4% (mean of both cutoff values), 50%, and 54%, respectively. Reduced BMI presented low agreement (κ = 0.315-0.383) and unsatisfactory accuracy (AUC-ROC curve = 0.333-0.679) with reference methods for malnutrition diagnosis. Age-related reduced BMI (odds ratio [OR] = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.10-4.04) and BMI ≤ 21.0 (OR = 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.48) were associated with hospital stays longer than the median in adjusted models, but not in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: BMI was inaccurate in identifying malnutrition in hospitalized patients with AECOPD and was associated with hospital stays longer than ten days.

A scoping review on the GLIM criteria for malnutrition diagnosis: Understanding how and for which purpose it has been applied in studies on hospital settings.

AIMS: This scoping review aimed to identify and map the literature on malnutrition diagnosis made using the GLIM criteria in hospitalized patients. METHODS: The scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (until 16 April 2022) to identify studies based on the 'population' (adults or elderly patients), 'concept' (malnutrition diagnosis by the GLIM criteria), and 'context' (hospital settings) framework. Titles/abstracts were screened, and two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies. RESULTS: Ninety-six studies were eligible (35.4% from China, 30.2% involving oncological patients, and 30.5% with prospective data collection), 32 followed the two-step GLIM approach, and 50 applied all the criteria. All the studies evaluated body mass index (BMI), while 92.7% evaluated weight loss; 77.1%, muscle mass; 93.8%, inflammation; and 70.8%, energy intake. A lack of details on the methods adopted for criterion evaluation was observed in five (muscle mass evaluation) to 40 studies (energy intake evaluation). The frequency of the use of the GLIM criteria ranged from 22.2% (frequency of low BMI) to 84.7% (frequency of inflammation), and the malnutrition prevalence ranged from 0.96% to 87.9%. Less than 30% of studies aimed to assess the GLIM criterion validity, eight studies cited the guidance on validation of the GLIM criteria, and a minority implemented it. CONCLUSIONS: This map of studies on the GLIM criteria in hospital settings demonstrated that they are applied in a heterogeneous manner, with a wide range of malnutrition prevalence. Almost 50% of the studies applied all the criteria, while one-third followed the straightforward two-step approach. The recommendations of the guidance on validation of the criteria were scarcely adhered to. The gaps that need to be explored in future studies have been highlighted.

Protocol for a meta-research study of protocols for diet or nutrition-related trials published in indexed journals: general aspects of study design, rationale and reporting limitations.

INTRODUCTION: The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) reporting guideline establishes a minimum set of items to be reported in any randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocol. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting guideline was developed to improve the reporting of interventions in RCT protocols and results papers. Reporting completeness in protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs has not been systematically investigated. We aim to identify published protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs, assess their reporting completeness and identify the main reporting limitations remaining in this field. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a meta-research study of RCT protocols published in journals indexed in at least one of six selected databases between 2012 and 2022. We have run a search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Global Health using a search strategy designed to identify protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of records yielded by the search in Rayyan. The full texts will then be read to confirm protocol eligibility. We will collect general study features (publication information, types of participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design) of all eligible published protocols in this contemporary sample. We will assess reporting completeness in a randomly selected sample of them and identify their main reporting limitations. We will compare this subsample with the items in the SPIRIT and TIDieR statements. For all data collection, we will use data extraction forms in REDCap. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YWEVS). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will undertake a secondary analysis of published data and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in nutrition research.

Prognostic value of phase angle and bioelectrical impedance vector in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Assessment of the raw parameters derived from bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has gained emphasis in critically ill patients. The phase angle (PhA) reflects the integrity of the cell membrane, and bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) is indicative of patients' hydration status. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these parameters are associated with clinical outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science for all published observational studies without language restrictions up to April 2022. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. We judged the risk of bias by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach. Mortality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, nutritional risk, and malnutrition. A meta-analysis with a random-effect model was performed to combine data on R version 3.6.2. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included in the systematic review (4872 participants). Pooled analysis revealed that patients with low PhA had a higher risk of death (14 studies; RR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.26; I2 = 42%) and spent more days in ICU (6 studies; MD = 1.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.24, I2 = 69%) in comparison to patients with normal PhA. The pooled analysis also showed higher PhA values in survivors compared to non-survivor patients (12 studies; MD = 0.75°, 95% CI 0.60° to 0.91°, I2 = 31%). Overhydration defined by BIVA was not a predictor of mortality (4 studies; RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.46; I2 = 0%). More than 40% of primary studies were classified with a high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed, with limited evidence, that low PhA was associated with higher mortality and ICU length of stay, while overhydration identified by BIVA was not a predictor of death in critically ill patients.

Complementarity of nutritional screening tools to GLIM criteria on malnutrition diagnosis in hospitalised patients: A secondary analysis of a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) proposed a two-step approach for the malnutrition diagnosis: screening to identify "at risk" patients by any validated nutritional screening tool (NST), followed by a detailed nutritional assessment for diagnosis and grading the severity of malnutrition. Since there are several validated NST, this study aimed to evaluate the complementarity of five NST to GLIM criteria for malnutrition diagnosis in a sample of hospitalized patients. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a longitudinal study. Data collection occurred within 48 h of hospital admission and included clinical, sociodemographic and nutritional data. We applied five tools for nutritional risk (NR) screening: Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Nutritional Risk in Emergency-2017 (NRE-2017), Nutritional Risk Screening - 2002 (NRS-2002), and Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ). GLIM criteria were applied to malnutrition diagnosis considering all five criteria. Patients were followed up until discharge to assess hospital length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality and contacted six months post-discharge to assess hospital readmission and death. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive and negative values (PPV and NPV), and kappa. We grouped patients according to NR and malnutrition status in four categories [i.e. NR(+)/GLIM(+)] and investigated their associations with the clinical outcomes in regression models adjusted to the Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Among the 601 patients included (55.8 ± 14.8 years, 51.4% males), 41.6% were malnourished by GLIM criteria. The frequency of NR ranged from 24.0% (NRE-2017) to 35.8% (NRS-2002). MUST had the highest sensitivity (73.6%), NPV (83.6%) and PPV (93.4%). All NST presented specificity higher than 90%, except NRS-2002. The accuracy of NST ranged from 76.3% (SNAQ) to 86.8% (MUST). NR (+)/GLIM (+) by NRE-2017, MST, and MUST increased the risk of in-hospital mortality (HR ranged from 5.34 to 10.10). NR (+)/GLIM (+) increased the odds of LOS ≥10 days (RR between 2.11 and 3.01), readmission (RR between 1.51 and 1.80), and mortality six months after discharge (RR between 3.91 and 5.12), regardless of the NST applied. CONCLUSION: MUST presented the highest metrics of accuracy in comparison to GLIM criteria and was an independent predictor of worse clinical outcomes when nutritional risk was combined to malnutrition diagnosis. So, risk screening by MUST is suggested as the first step of the GLIM approach.

Prognostic Value of Isolated Sarcopenia or Malnutrition-Sarcopenia Syndrome for Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients.

Malnutrition-sarcopenia syndrome (MSS) is frequent in the hospital setting. However, data on the predictive validity of sarcopenia and MSS are scarce. We evaluated the association between sarcopenia and MSS and clinical adverse outcomes (prolonged length of hospital stay-LOS, six-month readmission, and death) using a prospective cohort study involving adult hospitalized patients (n = 550, 55.3 ± 14.9 years, 53.1% males). Sarcopenia was diagnosed according to the EWGSOP2, and malnutrition according to the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Around 34% were malnourished, 7% probable sarcopenic, 15% sarcopenic, and 2.5% severe sarcopenic. In-hospital death occurred in 12 patients, and the median LOS was 10.0 days. Within six months from discharge, 7.9% of patients died, and 33.8% were readmitted to the hospital. Probable sarcopenia/sarcopenia had increased 3.95 times (95% CI 1.11-13.91) the risk of in-hospital death and in 3.25 times (95% CI 1.56-6.62) the chance of mortality in six months. MSS had increased the odds of prolonged LOS (OR = 2.73; 95% CI 1.42-5.25), readmission (OR = 7.64; 95% CI 3.06-19.06), and death (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 1.08-1.21) within six months after discharge. Sarcopenia and MSS were predictors of worse clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients.