The Association between Malnutrition and Physical Performance in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years the focus of healthcare and nutritional science in older adults has shifted from mortality towards physical performance and quality of life. The aim of this review was to summarize observational studies on physical performance in malnourished (MN) or at risk of malnutrition (RMN) older adults compared with well-nourished (WN) older adults. Eligible studies had to report on nutritional status and objectively measured physical performance in older adults (≥60 y). MN or RMN groups had to be compared with a WN group, measured with a validated nutrition screener. Ovid Medline and Web of Science were searched until 13 November, 2020. Study quality was scored using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results were analyzed by meta-analysis when possible, or narratively reviewed otherwise. Forty-five studies (16,911 participants in total) were included from studies in outpatient clinics (n = 6), nursing homes (n = 3), community-dwelling older adults (n = 20), hospitalized patients (n = 15), or a combination (n = 1). Studies used 11 different screeners of malnutrition, and 8 types of physical performance measures. Meta-analysis showed that compared with MN, WN groups had better hand grip strength (mean difference [MD] = 4.92 kg; 95% CI: 3.43, 6.41; P < 0.001; n = 23), faster gait speed (MD = 0.16 m/s; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.27; P = 0.0033; n = 7), performed faster on timed-up-and-go (MD = –5.94 s; 95% CI: –8.98, –2.89; P < 0.001; n = 8), and scored 1.2 more short physical performance battery points (95% CI: 1.32, 2.73; P < 0.001; n = 6). Results were less pronounced when compared with RMN. Narratively, all studies showed an association for knee extension strength, 6-min walking test, and multicomponent tests, except for the chair stand test. Study limitations include no studies scoring “good” on NOS, lack of confounder adjustment, and high heterogeneity. Overall, evidence from cross-sectional studies indicate an association between malnutrition and worse physical performance in older adults. This study is registered in PROSPERO as CRD42020192893.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".