Table 2 The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist (primary research) for studies included in this systematic review.

From: Incidence and criteria used in the diagnosis of hospital-acquired malnutrition in adults: a systematic review and pooled incidence analysis

Reference

Overall Quality Ratingq

Relevance Questionr

Validity Questionss

Comments

1

2

3a

4a

5a

6a

7

8

9

10

Lima J, et al. 2021 [42]

(+) POSITIVE

Y

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yb

Y

Y

Y

• bRepeated nutrition assessments done at day 7, this might not see sufficient time to observe changes in nutritional status when using the SGA.

van Vliet, et al. 2020 [43]

(−) NEGATIVE

Y

Y

U

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Nc

Y

Y

Ud

• cA practice-based study, unclear of inter-rater reliability

• d Conflict of interest (if any) was not reported

Woodward T, et al. 2020

(−) NEGATIVE

Y

Y

Ne

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Nf

Y

Y

Ug

• eDid not exclude palliative patients.

• fUnclear timeframe between nutrition assessments. Further, in the absence of the SGA, clinical judgement was used to assess decline in nutritional status; however, it was not reported what variables were assessed under clinical judgement.

• gConflict of interest (if any) was not reported

Cheng J, et al. 2019 [21]

(−) NEGATIVE

Y

Y

Nh

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Ni

Y

Y

Y

• hDid not exclude palliative patients.

• iUnclear timeframe between nutrition Assessments. Further, in the absence of the SGA, components of the SGA were used; however, it was not reported which variables within the SGA were assessed.

Whitley A, et al. 2017 [45]

(+) POSITIVE

Y

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

Collins J, et al. 2016 [34]

(+) POSITIVE

Y

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

Allard J. P, et al. 2016 [39]

(+) POSITIVE

Y

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yj

Y

Y

Y

• jMedian LOS was 11 days, which might not see sufficient time to observe changes in nutritional status when using the SGA.

McDougall et al. 2015 [44]

(+) POSITIVE

Y

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

Yun-Chi Hung et al, 2013

Ø NEUTRAL

Y

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Nk

Y

Y

Y

• kbaseline nutrition assessment in some patients was conducted 23 or 33 days before hospitalisation, therefore unable to determine if nutritional decline did not occur prior to hospital admission.

Bell et al. 2012

(+) POSITIVE

Y

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Y

Y

Y

Y

• Conflict of interest (if any) was not reported

Cansado P, et al. 2000

(+) POSITIVE

Y

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yl

Y

Um

Y

• lThe median LOS was 11 days, and the minimum timeframe between assessments was 3 days, which might not see sufficient to observe changes in nutritional status when using the SGA.

• mBiases and limitations were not identified and discussed in the study

Braunschweig C, et al. 2000 [41]

Ø NEUTRAL

Y

Y

Ym

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yn

Yo

Y

Up

• nComplications and infections were not defined in the study

• oAdjustments for confounding factors were not made for all outcomes (specifically, length of stay). Mean (SD) and Median (without interquartile ranges) were presented for the same continuous variables.

• pSources of funding and conflict of interest (if any) was not reported

• mDid not exclude palliative patients

  1. Y yes, N no, U unclear, N/A not applicable, SGA Subjective Global Assessment, MNA the Mini Nutritional Assessment, LOS length of stay, SD standard deviation.
  2. aDue to the nature of the studies included, validity questions 3,4,5, and 6 were not applicable.
  3. qAssignment of Overall Quality Rating:
  4. MINUS/NEGATIVE (−) If most (six or more) of the answers to the above validity questions are “No,” the report should be designated with a minus (−) symbol on the Evidence Worksheet
  5. NEUTRAL (∅) If the answers to validity criteria questions 2, 3, 6, and 7 do not indicate that the study is exceptionally strong, the report should be designated with a neutral (∅) symbol on the Evidence Worksheet.
  6. PLUS/POSITIVE ( + ) If most of the answers to the above validity questions are “Yes” (including criteria 2, 3, 6, 7 and at least one additional “Yes”), the report should be designated with a plus symbol (+) on the Evidence Worksheet.
  7. rRelevance Questions (n = 4).
  8. 1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (NA for some Epi studies)
  9. 2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?
  10. 3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dietetics practice?
  11. 4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)
  12. sValidity Questions (n = 10).
  13. 1. Was the research question clearly stated?
  14. 2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?
  15. 3. Were study groups comparable?
  16. 4. Was method of handling withdrawals described?
  17. 5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?
  18. 6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail?; Were intervening factors described?
  19. 7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?
  20. 8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?
  21. 9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?
  22. 10. Is bias due to study’s funding or sponsorship unlikely?
Back to article page