P652 - SELF-SCREENING OF NUTRITIONAL RISK BY PATIENTS VERSUS HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY

P652

SELF-SCREENING OF NUTRITIONAL RISK BY PATIENTS VERSUS HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY

X. Theodoridis^1,*, A. Papaemmanouil¹, N. Papageorgiou¹, A. Triantafyllou¹, M. Chourdakis¹

¹School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Rationale: Nutritional risk screening is widely recommended as a standard procedure in healthcare settings, with the use of appropriate validated tools. However, the implementation of this process is often omitted due to lack of time or resources. The aim of this study is to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the application of Malnutrition Universal Risk Tool (MUST) by patients compared to healthcare professionals.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases, along with the bibliographic references of the included studies and the grey literature. Studies selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two investigators. The meta-analysis was performed by applying the bivariate mixed-effects model. The pooled sensitivity and specificity are reported along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: A total of three studies involving 436 participants were included, comparing the application of the MUST by patients and healthcare professionals. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 (95%CI: 0.79-0.98) and 0.89 (95%CI: 0.76-0.96), respectively.

Conclusion: Patients may effectively conduct malnutrition detection themselves, thereby saving time for healthcare professionals and increasing the identification of at-risk individuals, which leads to more effective nutritional interventions. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research with larger sample sizes and consideration of potential confounding factors (such as age, educational status, and level of consciousness) is necessary to thoroughly evaluate the applicability of patient-administered nutritional risk screening tools.

Disclosure of Interest: None declared