Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo científico |
| Lenguaje: | en |
| Publicado: |
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=576366656003 https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5763/576366656003/ https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5763/576366656003/html/ https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5763/576366656003/576366656003.epub https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5763/576366656003/movil |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Systematic review and comparative analysis of pediatric nutrition screening tools validated in Europe and Canada Laura Vásquez-Cárdenas Olga Lucia Pinzón-Espitia Medicina Review Pediatrics Malnutrition Mass Screening Hospitals (MeSH) 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. 2020 reseña 2357-3848 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=576366656003 https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5763/576366656003/ https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5763/576366656003/html/ https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5763/576366656003/576366656003.epub https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5763/576366656003/movil 10.15446/revfacmed.v68n1.73180 en http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=5763 Revista de la Facultad de Medicina application/pdf Universidad Nacional de Colombia Revista de la Facultad de Medicina (Colombia) Num.1 Vol.68