Cited by 25Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyNutrition and Health in AgingDietetics, Nutrition, and Education

Predictive validity of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition indicators to diagnose malnutrition tool in hospitalized adults: a cohort study

Open access
Jimenez, Elizabeth Yakes, Lamers-Johnson, Erin, Long, Julie M, McCabe, George, Ma, Xingya, Woodcock, Lindsay, Bliss, Courtney, Abram, Jenica K +1 more·2024·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The lack of a widely accepted, broadly validated tool for diagnosing malnutrition in hospitalized patients limits the ability to assess the integral role of nutrition as an input and outcome of health, disease, and treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive validity of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) indicators to diagnose malnutrition (AAIM) tool and determine if it can be simplified. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted from August 2019 to September 2022 with 32 hospitals in United States. At baseline, 290 adult patients were evaluated for a diagnosis of malnutrition using the AAIM tool, which assesses weight loss, inadequate energy intake, subcutaneous fat and muscle loss, edema, and hand grip strength. Healthcare outcomes were extracted from the medical record: composite incidence of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions within 90 d postdischarge; length of hospital stay (LOS); and Medicare Severity Disease Related Group (MS-DRG) relative weight (i.e., healthcare resource utilization). We used multilevel, multivariable negative binomial or generalized linear regression models to evaluate relationships between malnutrition diagnosis and healthcare outcomes. RESULTS: After adjusting for disease severity and acuity and sociodemographic characteristics, individuals diagnosed with severe malnutrition had a higher incidence rate of ED visits and hospital readmissions (incidence rate ratio: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.14, 3.13; P = 0.01), and individuals diagnosed with moderate malnutrition had a 25.2% longer LOS (95% CI: 2.0%, 53.7%; P = 0.03) and 15.1% greater healthcare resource utilization (95% CI: 1.6%, 31.9%; P = 0.03) compared with individuals with no malnutrition diagnosis. Observed relationships remained consistent when only considering malnutrition diagnoses supported by at least 2 of these indicators: weight loss, subcutaneous fat loss, muscle wasting, and inadequate energy intake. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this multihospital study confirm the predictive validity of the original or simplified AAIM tool and support its routine use for hospitalized adult patients. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03928548 (https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT03928548).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.12.012

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The predictive validity of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/ASPEN indicators for diagnosing malnutrition tool was confirmed across 290 adult inpatients, with severe malnutrition associated with emergency department visits and hospital readmissions and moderate malnutrition with longer lengths of stay and greater health care use.

    “The predictive validity of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/ASPEN indicators for diagnosing malnutrition tool was recently confirmed across 290 adult inpatients in whom both the original tool and a simplified version showed association with emergency department visits and hospital readmissions for patients with severe malnutrition and longer lengths of stay and greater”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jimenez, E. Y., Lamers-Johnson, E., Long, J. M., McCabe, G., Ma, X., Woodcock, L., Bliss, C., Abram, J. K., & Steiber, A. L.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Steiber, Alison L
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-03
Volume
119
Issue
3
Pages
779-787
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391754431
Cited by
25
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4
FWCI
6.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Foundation
  • Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Keywords
malnutrition, malnutrition screening, predictive validity, hospitalized adults, hospital readmission, emergency department visits, length of hospital stay, healthcare resource utilization, weight loss, muscle atrophy, subcutaneous fat loss, grip strength, edema, nutritional assessment, hospital-acquired malnutrition
MeSH terms
Adult, Aftercare, Aged, Dietetics, Enteral Nutrition, Medicare, Humans, Patient Discharge, Prospective Studies, United States, Cohort Studies, Weight Loss, Hand Strength, Malnutrition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review