CEP Clinical and Experimental PediatricsClin Exp Pediatr 2713-4148 Korean Pediatric Society 10.3345/cep.2025.00633 cep-2025-00633 Review Article Nutrition Exploring nutritional screening tools for hospitalized children: a narrative review http://orcid.org/0009-0005-7245-5340 SoniPankaj MRCPCH 1 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6316-6700 AgrawalAmit MD 2 http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5782-9666 JadonGaurav DNB 3 Department of Neonatology, Thumbay University Hospital, and Clinical Lecturer, Department of Clinical Sciences (Pediatric Neonatology), College of Medicine, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, UAE Department of Pediatrics, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, India NMC Specialty Hospital, Dubai, UAE Corresponding author: Amit Agrawal, MD. Department of Pediatrics, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal 462030, Madhya Pradesh. India Email: agrawaldramit@yahoo.co.in 12 2025 22 10 2025 68 12 963 970 13 03 2025 10 08 2025 22 08 2025 Copyright © 2025 by The Korean Pediatric Society 2025 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Malnutrition is common among hospitalized children, especially those who are critically ill. Routine measures, such as anthropometric measurements, body composition, and nutritional assessment, comprise the basics of monitoring. This review discusses the adequacy of nutritional screening tools (NSTs) such as the SGNA (Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment), PYMS (Pediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score), STAMP (Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics), and STRONGkids (Screening Tool for Risk of Nutritional Status and Growth). This review included recently published reports supporting the validation and implementation of NSTs in pediatric populations. A child's nutritional status during hospitalization is of great importance for their recovery, while the implementation of screening tools enhances their clinical outcomes. Current tools have varying sensitivities and specificities, and no single tool can be recommended for all groups of hospitalized children. A combination of tools or adaptation of existing tools with validation in different contexts might be ideal. Further studies are required to develop more robust and comprehensive screening tools.

 Nutritional assessment Nutritional status Nutritional screening tools Child Malnutrition Key message

Malnutrition is frequently identified in hospitalized children, and the use of nutritional screening tools is crucial for assessing their nutritional status during their hospital admission and stay. Common tools include the Pediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score, Screening Tool for Assessment of Malnutrition in Pediatrics, and Screening Tool for Risk of Nutritional Status and Growth. However, these tools have varying sensitivities and specificities, and none is recommended for all hospitalized children.

 Introduction

Malnutrition is often associated with recovery and outcomes in critically ill children [1]. According to the World Health Organization, malnutrition is defined as a deficiency, excess, or imbalance in food intake and energy requirements. Although the term “undernutrition” is used interchangeably with “malnutrition,” the latter comprises 3 groups: undernutrition, micronutrient-related malnutrition, and overnutrition [2]. The prevalence of malnutrition in hospitalized children varies widely, and different studies reported a prevalence rate of 13.4% in developed countries versus 83.5% in African countries [3-5].

Malnutrition is often underreported in hospitalized children, especially among those admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), who are then subjected to an increased risk of sepsis, impaired immunity, wound healing, and gut immunity [2,3]. Many studies have shown an association between undernutrition at the time of a PICU admission and poor outcomes, particularly mortality, length of stay in the PICU and hospital, mechanical ventilation duration, and hospital-acquired infections [6-8]. Albadi and Bookari [9] conducted a meta-analysis of 10,638 patients from 17 observational studies and reported a slightly higher risk of mortality (risk difference=0.02; P=0.05) in undernourished versus well-nourished children.

The resting energy expenditure of children increases in cases of severe illness, which can be considered a state of rapid catabolism, inflammation, and insulin resistance. Hospitalized children experience a loss of energy, decreased appetite, and low intake of protein and calories due to the disease, preexisting comorbidities, immune dysfunction, malabsorption, and administration of drugs, all of which lead to the development of nutritional deficiency. Adequate nutrition is required for energy consumption at rest, during activity, according to disease severity, and for macronutrient metabolism [2,3,5].

According to most studies, nutritional status and outcomes are correlated, and 5%–27% of patients’ nutritional statuses deteriorate during hospitalization [10,11]. Nutritional risk is defined as the current nutritional status and risk of deterioration due to increased requirements caused by the metabolic stress of clinical conditions. All major internationally recognized organizations, including the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) [11], American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) [12], and European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) [13], recommend an evaluation of nutritional status at admission to identify at-risk children. Nutritional screening tools (NSTs) aid the identification of malnourished children and those at risk of developing malnutrition during their hospital stay. An early nutritional risk assessment followed by nutritional intervention can improve patient prognosis and decrease malnutrition-derived complications [14].

Many NSTs, such as the Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment (SGNA), Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP), Pediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS), and Screening Tool for Risk on Nutritional Status and Growth (STRONGkids), have been validated for screening in hospital settings [15-21], but no single tool is suitable for all populations since they have different methods, sensitivities, specificities, reliabilities, and validities for detecting malnutrition [22]. This review aimed to summarize the evidence on the application of NSTs to identify nutritional risk in hospitalized children and analyze the development, implementation, validation, and suitability of each.

 Methods

A literature search was performed of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases for studies on NSTs in critically ill children published from inception to February 15, 2025. The following keywords were utilized: "nutritional screening,” "critical illness,” "children,” "malnutrition,” "nutrition assessment,” and "pediatric.”

Studies discussing the development, validation, or implementation of nutritional assessment tools in hospitalized pediatric populations were retrieved and analyzed. Comparative studies including original articles, systematic reviews (SRs), and meta-analyses providing insights into the performance, effectiveness, and impact of NSTs were included. Studies that recruited only adults and whose articles were not written in English were excluded.

 Discussion 1. Nutritional screening vs. nutritional assessment

The terms "nutritional screening" and "nutritional assessment" are often used interchangeably because of their blurry demarcations. A nutritional screening is used to indicate the risk factors for a condition leading to nutritional deprivation, whereas a nutritional assessment provides a nutritional diagnosis to enable the planning of appropriate interventions. According to most guidelines, both tests should be routinely performed at hospital admission to identify children at risk of malnutrition and prevent further nutritional decline through appropriate management. However, these methods are not routinely employed in most settings worldwide, other than research settings. Many of these tools are complex, lengthy, and lack sufficient evidence for their implementation in clinical practice. Moreover, societies define these terms differently, increasing confusion among clinicians [14].

The ASPEN defines nutritional screening as “a process for identifying patients who are already malnourished or at risk of malnutrition." [23] According to the ESPEN, screening is a rapid and simple process that can be performed by healthcare workers in hospitals or community settings [24]. In contrast, a nutritional assessment identifies problems and enables specific diagnoses. It involves the continued collection of more information and physical examinations focused on nutrition-related issues to identify nutritional problems and determine their severity. According to the ESPEN, an expert clinician, dietitian, or nutrition nurse should conduct a nutritional assessment [14].

A nutritional screening considers only recent changes in the patient's nutrient intake, weight, and general appearance. However, it does not include a detailed history, a physical examination, or laboratory investigations. In contrast, a nutritional assessment gathers detailed information on the adequacy, degree, and impact of changes in nutrient intake in the following 5 aspects: (1) anthropometric assessment (such as body mass index [BMI], midupper arm circumference, height-for-weight, and standard percentile growth charts); (2) a thorough history of present and past illnesses, surgeries, or medications; (3) a nutrition-focused physical examination; (4) relevant laboratory investigations (to check metabolic and immunity status); and (5) food history and recent dietary changes [14].

A nutritional assessment, along with a nutritional screening, facilitate the customization of pharmacological and surgical interventions and provides a rough idea of a patient's disease recovery, hospitalization needs, and survival chances.

 2. Overview of nutritional assessment tools

Numerous NSTs have been developed and validated for hospitalized children and adolescents and used in different settings. A recent SR conducted by Ventura et al. [25] identified 19 NSTs used in hospitalized children. Of them, NSTs in 13 studies could identify nutritional status deterioration and 5 studies included PICU patients, but these were not validated for critically ill children. Thus, consensus is lacking regarding the most suitable NST for pediatric patients. An SR by Pereira et al. [26] identified 10 NSTs for pediatric use, of which the STAMP, PYMS, and STRONGkids were the most frequently used. Other NSTs include the SGNA, Nutrition Evaluation Screening Tool (NEST), and Pediatric Nutrition Screening Tool (PNST). Another SR by Klanjsek et al. [27] identified 8 validated NSTs and 3 nutritional assessment tools for children admitted to the hospital.

The commonly used and validated tools for various setups for children admitted to medical and surgical departments include the STAMP, PYMS, STRONGkids, and PNST. Some commonly used assessment tools for specific diseases include the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and SGNA for patients in the surgical department, nutrition screening tool for childhood cancer, nutrition screening tool for pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis, Neonatal Nutrition Screening Tool used in the neonatal intensive care unit, and the Clinical Assessment of Nutritional Status score to differentiate malnourished from appropriately nourished babies [25-27]. Other new, less commonly used, or nonvalidated NSTs include the Electronic Health Record – Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (EHR-STAMP, a modified STAMP tool), iNfant Early Nutrition Warning Score, the Lao Nutritional Risk Screen Tool (a modified STRONGkids tool), Nutritional Risk Score (NRS), NST, Pediatric Digital Scaled Malnutrition Risk Screening Tool, Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment, Paediatric Malnutrition Screening Tool (a modified STAMP tool), and Pediatric Nutritional Screening Score [25-27].

NSTs are useful in clinical practice for the early identification of malnourished patients or those at risk of malnutrition. The choice of an NST depends on the healthcare setting, expertise, and resources. It should be easy to use, standardize, validated, less time-consuming, and economical, while its sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility should be reasonably high. The NST is initially applied within the first 24–48 hours of admission to detect malnutrition and then repeated regularly to identify nutritional deterioration during the hospitalization. Any NST must consider inadequate nutrition, involuntary weight loss, the patient’s functional capacity, and disease-associated metabolic stress [28,29]. The STAMP is a frequently used tool that can be easily used by clinical dieticians and physicians in both hospitals and clinics. The PYMS is another commonly used tool, mainly designed for hospitalized patients, but it can also be applied in orphanages, charities, and pediatric homes, settings where many children need monitoring, especially in cases of contagious diseases. The STAMP is an excellent tool for ensuring a prompt nutritional risk assessment, whereas the PYMS is suitable for monitoring progress.

 3. Important NSTs

A summary of the important NSTs used in the pediatric population is provided in Table 1 and Supplementary material.

1) Screening tool for assessing malnutrition in pediatrics

The STAMP is a five-step screening tool for measuring the nutritional status of children aged 2–16 years during hospitalization. This tool was designed by a team from the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital and the University of Ulster [30]. It is easy to use, features good sensitivity (75%–90%), and does not require formal nutrition training; therefore, it can be used by any healthcare worker. This feature makes it a widely used tool to screen for malnutrition among pediatric inpatients. The tool focuses on nutritional intake, weight and height changes, and clinical conditions to assign risk levels and guide clinical action, making it both practical and actionable [16,30]. Several studies have validated the STAMP tool and highlighted its ability to identify children at risk of malnutrition and trigger appropriate nutritional interventions. Wong et al. [31] reported that the STAMP had good agreement with a dietician’s assessment (Cohen kappa value, κ=0.5) and good agreement with the PYMS (κ=0.314), sensitivity of 83.3%, and specificity of 66.7%, proving that it is both valid and reliable for use in hospital admission cases. The same conclusion was reflected in a study by Rub et al. [32] in which the STAMP had a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 82.05%. The STAMP is a good tool for mass screening and outdoor assessment rather than the progressive monitoring of a child’s health. However, its reliance on clinical judgement, nutrient intake, and anthropometric data may limit its applicability for detecting chronic malnutrition in resource-constrained settings [30-32].

 2) Pediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score

The PYMS, developed by Gerasimidis et al. [17], is a modification of the ESPEN assessment. It was specifically designed for hospitalized pediatric patients and incorporates components such as weight loss, nutritional intake, BMI, and the presence of acute disease. Those children scoring a total of ≥2 should be referred to a dietician for a detailed dietary assessment. Studies have demonstrated that the PYMS is a reliable screening tool for identifying children at risk of malnutrition and stratifying risk into low, medium, or high categories. Gerasimidis et al. conducted a pilot study of critically ill children followed by a larger study in tertiary- and district-level hospitals. The PYMS showed similar sensitivity to the STAMP in a pilot study but much better specificity (95%) and an accurate negative predictive value (92%) when applied in a practical setup [17,33]. Another study reported that PYMS is easy to use and has shown a sensitivity of 65%–85%. The emphasis on recent changes in nutritional status makes it particularly useful for identifying acute risks in clinical care. However, its sensitivity for detecting long-term nutritional issues and chronic malnutrition requires further validation [32,33].

 3) Screening tool for risk on nutritional status and growth

The STRONGkids, a simple, easy-to-use, and low-cost questionnaire formulated by Hulst et al. [19], is widely used globally to identify nutritional risks in different populations owing to its good sensitivity and specificity. It should be administered within 48 hours of hospital admission. In the NST, 4 diet- and disease-related items are assigned a score before anthropometric measurements are taken, including recent weight changes, subjective assessment of nutritional status, food intake, and underlying illnesses predisposing an individual to malnutrition. The sum of the scores of the 4 parameters, together with body measurements, identifies the risk of malnutrition classified as high (>4), moderate (1–3), or low (<1) and guides necessary interventions and follow-up [19,27,34].

 4) Pediatric Nutrition Screening Tool

The PNST, a simple and rapid assessment tool developed in Australia by White et al. [35] in 2016, negates the need for complicated anthropometric measurements and judicious assessments by a clinical dietician. Physicians, nurses, or dietitians can apply the PNST at 24 hours post-hospital admission to identify children at risk of malnutrition. It consists of 4 questions regarding recent unintentional weight loss, poor weight gain over the last few months, a reduced dietary intake in the past few weeks, and a subjective assessment by the healthcare worker regarding the child being underweight [36]. The child is suffering from malnutrition if 2 or more questions can be answered with a “yes.” According to a study by White et al. [35], this simple tool showed 89.3% sensitivity and 66.2% specificity, establishing its validity and reliability.

 5) SGA and SGNA

The SGA has been evaluated as a versatile tool for assessing nutritional risk in the general population. It relies on subjective criteria, including a combination of clinical history, physical findings, and functional status, to determine an individual’s nutritional status. This tool has good sensitivity (>86%) and good reproducibility (κ=0.28) [15]. The SGA effectively categorizes individuals into 3 groups: well-nourished, at-risk, and malnourished. Its simplicity and adaptability make it a practical choice in diverse healthcare settings for detecting malnutrition in children who are moribund, scheduled for surgery, or have postoperative complications or infectious diseases. However, its subjective nature may result in variability among assessors, highlighting the need for adequate training to ensure its consistent application [15,25-27].

In contrast, the SGNA requires more time owing to the use of a more detailed questionnaire to evaluate and classify a patient’s nutritional status. The SGNA considers food intake, gastrointestinal symptoms, anthropometric measurements, functional impairment, physical examination, and metabolic stress of the disease. Finally, nutritional status was categorized as well-nourished, moderately malnourished, or severely malnourished. The SGNA has high false-positive results as standardized height-weight graphs are followed rather than individual yardsticks, causing racial and cultural variations. The SGNA has shown good sensitivity (~80%) and specificity (~75%) and offers a holistic approach; however, it requires a subjective assessment by trained personnel, which might be challenging in resource-limited settings [25-27].

 6) Nutrition Evaluation Screening Tool

The NEST model, proposed by Dokal et al. [37], is a quick screening tool applicable to the general population. It evaluates weight loss, appetite changes, BMI, and disease impact. Studies confirmed its effectiveness at efficiently identifying nutritional risks in clinical settings since it showed moderate agreement with 2 tools, the STRONGkids (κ=0.472) and STAMP (κ=0.416), for patients during initial screenings at admission, along with an 87.2% sensitivity rate. The NEST provides a clear risk level with recommendations for further action, making it suitable for rapid assessments. Its utility in both inpatient and outpatient settings has been noted, although its application in specialized populations such as pediatric or critically ill patients requires further study [37].

 7) Pediatric Nutritional Risk Score

The Pediatric NRS (PNRS) was developed in France to identify children >1 month of age who are at risk of acute malnutrition during hospitalization. Treating physicians or nurses administer it within 48 hours of admission to evaluate nutritional risk factors. This tool considers anthropometric measurements, the patient's ability to eat, food intake, pain or other symptoms interfering with their food intake, the ability to retain food despite vomiting and diarrhea, and disease severity. Another advantage of the PNRS is that it compares individual standards rather than preexisting charts that evaluate patients individually. The range is 0–5, and nutritional risk is categorized as low (0 points), moderate (1–2 points), or high (3–5 points) [20,38].

 4. Validation and comparison of screening tools

The most commonly used NSTs (the STAMP, PYMS, STRONGkids, PNST, and SGNA) have been validated in pediatric populations [27]. These NSTs were validated using reference standards, including anthropometric measurements (weight-for-height z score [WHZ], BMI for age z score, length/height for age z score, midupper arm circumference), nutrition-related biochemical markers, and a dietary intake assessment. These are used in most validation studies because they are common indicators for detecting malnutrition in pediatric patients [39]. Sayed et al. [39] analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of commonly used NSTs (the STAMP, PYMS, STRONGkids, and SGNA) in 1,000 children aged 1–12 years visiting an outpatient clinic, using anthropometric measurements (weight, length/height, and weight for length/height) as the gold standard. The highest sensitivity (79.4%) and specificity (80.2%) were found for the STRONGkids, followed by the SGNA and STAMP, which had sensitivities of 77.5% and 73.5%, respectively, and specificities of 81.4% and 93.5%, respectively. The PYMS demonstrated the lowest sensitivity (66.7%) and highest specificity (93.5%).

Malekiantaghi et al. [40] compared the efficacies of 3 NSTs (the STAMP, PYMS, and STRONGkids) at identifying the risk of malnutrition in hospitalized children using the WHZ and BMI Z-scores. They found a significant relationship between the PYMS and WHZ (P<0.001), BMI z score (P<0.001), and STRONGkids and WHZ scores (P=0.017). Teixeira and Viana [41] conducted an SR to study the diagnostic accuracy of these NSTs in hospitalized children. They reported high sensitivity of the STAMP with almost perfect interrater agreement with the reference standard, whereas the STRONGkids had high sensitivity, low specificity, substantial intrarater agreement, and ease of use. Dos Santos et al. [42] reported that the STRONGkids is a valid, easy-to-use, and reproducible tool with good inter-and intrarater agreements.

 5. NST in PICU settings

Malnutrition in PICU patients has a variable prevalence that ranges from 13.4% in developed countries to 83.5% in African countries at the time of admission [3]. In addition to the risk of undernutrition, patients in the PICU have increased nutrient requirements owing to a surge in metabolic stress and inflammation. The nutritional status of these patients can deteriorate dramatically because of malabsorption and feeding intolerance [6,9]. Ventura et al. [25] conducted an SR that identified 19 NSTs in the pediatric population. Only 5 of these NSTs are applied to critically ill patients: PYMS, STRONGkids, PICU-SGNA, Hospital Malnutrition Risk Assessment Tool, and Mezoff’s NRS. However, to date, none of these have been validated in PICU settings. Furthermore, none of these NSTs assessed illness severity, which is an important and relevant variable in PICU patients.

The PICU-SGNA can potentially be considered an NST tool for critically ill children. However, it is neither a rapid nor simple screening tool in the PICU population since it requires a detailed assessment [43]. Recently, dietitians at Children’s Wisconsin Hospital developed a unique tool, the Children’s Wisconsin Nutrition Screening Tool (CWNST), which is embedded within electronic medical records and has increased sensitivity compared with the PNST. The CWNST had a sensitivity of 0.985 and specificity of 0.06, whereas the PNST alone had a sensitivity of 0.1 and specificity of 0.981. The CWNST can be easily applied through emergency medical records to predict the nutritional risk of PICU patients. However, refinement is needed to enhance the specificity for identifying at-risk PICU patients who may benefit from early nutritional intervention [44].

 6. Challenges and opportunities using NSTs

One of the major challenges of a comprehensive NST is the lack of standardization in its use. Despite extensive research, its implementation remains far from practical. These NSTs were evaluated in the general population of hospitalized children; therefore, further validation is needed in different groups, such as children attending outpatient clinics, those with cancers and complex chronic conditions, and those admitted to the PICU. In addition, most validation studies have been conducted in developed countries, and the use of these NSTs is limited in underdeveloped countries owing to a lack of resources despite having a higher burden of malnutrition.

Although several NSTs have been developed and validated for hospitalized children and adolescents, consensus is lacking on the most suitable NST for pediatric use, and many studies have reported poor sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Chourdakis et al. [45] evaluated 3 NSTs (the PYMS, STAMP, and STRONGKIDS) and compared them with the anthropometric measurements, clinical variables, and body composition of 2,567 hospitalized children across 12 European countries. They reported the failure of all 3 tools at identifying children with subnormal anthropometric measurements and did not recommend any of the 3 NSTs for use in clinical practice. Lee et al. [38] evaluated 4 NSTs (the PNRS, STAMP, PYMS, and STRONGkids) in hospitalized Korean children with anthropometric and clinical variables and found considerably different results with 4 NSTs to screen nutrition risks at admission. Huysentruyt et al. [46] conducted an SR to evaluate the accuracy of various NSTs for assessing nutritional risk in hospitalized children in developed countries; they also failed to show any preference for choosing any one tool over another based on accuracy. Ventura et al. [25] found that none of the 19 NSTs used in hospitalized children were validated for identifying malnutrition in children admitted to the PICU. A new tool, the EHR-STAMP, was developed to incorporate the electronic health record and was deemed an easy-to-use, electronic health record–compatible, and reliable tool for screening nutritional risk in hospitalized children [47].

Despite the recognized importance of nutritional assessments, significant challenges remain in the field. Healthcare workers must understand the value of assessing patients’ nutritional statuses, applying tools to detect undernutrition, and ensuring appropriate care and referral. Major challenges for NSTs include a lack of expertise, differences in clinical opinions, and abnormal built comparisons. Addressing these challenges requires the development of robust and comprehensive nutritional assessment tools tailored to the unique needs of critically ill children. Future research should consider ways to elucidate the pathophysiological mechanisms of malnutrition, validate assessment tools in diverse clinical settings, and evaluate the effects of precise nutritional interventions on clinical outcomes. Although we reviewed the common tools, their scoring systems, uses, strengths, and weaknesses, a more detailed discussion focusing on criteria such as endocrine imbalance (gigantic or dwarf), children with subnormal physique, or specific PICU admission cases can provide better insight to clinicians.

 Conclusion

Integrating nutritional assessments into routine clinical practice in collaboration with a multidisciplinary team can facilitate the early detection of and prompt intervention for malnutrition, thereby preventing adverse outcomes in this vulnerable patient population. Current evidence suggests that no single tool provides perfect sensitivity and specificity owing to unique socioeconomic and nutritional challenges. A combination of tools or adaptation of existing tools with validation in different contexts might be ideal. Incorporating cultural and dietary specifics into assessment tools is critical to improving their applicability and accuracy.

 Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at https://doi.org/10.3345/cep.2025.00633.

Various nutritional screening tools used in pediatric patients

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: AA; Data curation: PS, GJ; Formal analysis: AA; Methodology: PS, AA, GJ; Writing - original draft: PS; Writing - review & editing: AA, GJ

 References SullivanPB JuszczakE LambertBR RoseM Ford-AdamsME JohnsonA Impact of feeding problems on nutritional intake and growth: Oxford Feeding Study II Dev Med Child Neurol 2002 44 461 7 World Health Organization Malnutrition (March 2024) [Internet]. Geneva (Switzerland) World Health Organization 2024 [2024 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition AberaEG SimeH The prevalence of malnutrition among critically ill children: a systematic review and metaanalysis BMC Pediatr 2023 23 583 GroleauV ThibaultM DoyonM BrochuEE RoyCC BabakissaC Malnutrition in hospitalized children: prevalence, impact, and management Can J Diet Pract Res 2014 75 29 34 PichlerJ HillSM ShawV LucasA Prevalence of undernutrition during hospitalization in a children's hospital: what happens during admission? Eur J Clin Nutr 2014 68 730 5 BechardLJ DugganC Touger-DeckerR ParrottJS Rothpletz-PugliaP Byham-GrayL Nutritional status based on body mass index is associated with morbidity and mortality in mechanically ventilated critically Ill children in the PICU Crit Care Med 2016 44 1530 7 AgrawalA SharmaS JanjuaD JadonG ChanchlaniR DsouzaV Impact of nutritional status on the outcomes of children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Nutr 2025 51 28 39 Nabukeera-BarungiN GrenovB LanyeroB NamusokeH MupereE ChristensenVB Predictors of mortality among hospitalized children with severe acute malnutrition: a prospective study from Uganda Pediatr Res 2018 84 92 8 AlbadiMS BookariK Is undernutrition associated with deterioration of outcomes in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU): systematic and meta-analysis review Front Pediatr 2022 10 769401 CampanozziA RussoM CatucciA RutiglianoI CanestrinoG GiardinoI Hospital-acquired malnutrition in children with mild clinical conditions Nutrition 2009 25 540 7 KondrupJ AllisonSP EliaM VellasB PlauthM Educational and Clinical Practice Committee, European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN) ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening 2002 Clin Nutr 2003 22 415 21 CorkinsMR GriggsKC Groh-WargoS Han-MarkeyTL HelmsRA MuirLV Standards for nutrition support: pediatric hospitalized patients Nutr Clin Pract 2013 28 263 76 AgostoniC AxelsonI ColombV GouletO KoletzkoB MichaelsenKF The need for nutrition support teams in pediatric units: a commentary by the ESPGHAN committee on nutrition J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2005 41 8 11 CharneyP Nutrition screening vs nutrition assessment: how do they differ? Nutr Clin Pract 2008 23 366 72 SeckerDJ JeejeebhoyKN Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment for children Am J Clin Nutr 2007 85 1083 9 McCarthyH DixonM CrabtreeI Eaton-EvansMJ McNultyH The development and evaluation of the Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP©) for use by healthcare staff J Hum Nutr Diet 2012 25 311 8 GerasimidisK KeaneO MacleodI FlynnDM WrightCM A four-stage evaluation of the Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score in a tertiary paediatric hospital and a district general hospital Br J Nutr 2010 104 751 6 ReillyHM MartineauJK MoranA KennedyH Nutritional screening- evaluation and implementation of a simple Nutrition Risk Score Clin Nutr 1995 14 269 73 HulstJM ZwartH HopWC JoostenKF Dutch national survey to test the STRONGkids nutritional risk screening tool in hospitalized children Clin Nutr 2010 29 106 11 Sermet-GaudelusI Poisson-SalomonAS ColombV BrussetMC MosserF BerrierF Simple pediatric nutritional risk score to identify children at risk of malnutrition Am J Clin Nutr 2000 72 64 70 Karagiozoglou-LampoudiT DaskalouE LampoudisD ApostolouA AgakidisC Computer-based malnutrition risk calculation may enhance the ability to identify pediatric patients at malnutrition-related risk for unfavorable outcomes JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2015 39 418 25 WonoputriN DjaisJT RosalinaI Validity of nutritional screening tools for hospitalized children J Nutr Metab 2014 2014 143649 TeitelbaumD GuenterP HowellWH KochevarME RothJ SeidnerDL Definition of terms, style, and conventions used in A.S.P.E.N. guidelines and standards Nutr Clin Pract 2005 20 281 5 LochsH AllisonSP MeierR PirlichM KondrupJ SchneiderS Introductory to the ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: terminology, definitions and general topics Clin Nutr 2006 25 180 6 VenturaJC SilveiraTT BechardL McKeeverL MehtaNM MorenoYM Nutritional screening tool for critically ill children: a systematic review Nutr Rev 2022 80 1392 418 PereiraDS da SilvaVM LuzGD SilvaFM Dalle MolleR Nutrition risk prevalence and screening tools' validity in pediatric patients: a systematic review JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2023 47 184 206 KlanjsekP PajnkiharM Marcun VardaN Povalej BrzanP Screening and assessment tools for early detection of malnutrition in hospitalized children: a systematic review of validation studies BMJ Open 2019 9 e025444 Serón-ArbeloaC Labarta-MonzónL Puzo-FoncillasJ Mallor-BonetT Lafita-LópezA Bueno-VidalesN Malnutrition screening and assessment Nutrients 2022 14 2392 van Bokhorst-de van der SchuerenMA GuaitoliPR JansmaEP de VetHC Nutrition screening tools: does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting Clin Nutr 2014 33 39 58 STAMP - Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics [Internet]. STAMP; [2025 Jan 19]. Available from: https://www.stampscreeningtool.org WongS GrahamA HiraniSP GrimbleG ForbesA Validation of the Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP) in patients with spinal cord injuries (SCIs) Spinal Cord 2013 51 424 9 RubG MarderfeldL PorazI HartmanC AmselS RosenbaumI Validation of a nutritional screening tool for ambulatory use in pediatrics J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2016 62 771 5 GerasimidisK MacleodI MacleanA BuchananE McGroganP SwinbankI Performance of the novel Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS) in hospital practice Clin Nutr 2011 30 430 5 BeserOF CokugrasFC ErkanT KutluT YagciRV TUHAMAR Study Group Evaluation of malnutrition development risk in hospitalized children Nutrition 2018 48 40 7 WhiteM LawsonK RamseyR DennisN HutchinsonZ SohXY Simple Nutrition Screening Tool for pediatric inpatients JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2016 40 392 8 CarterLE ShoyeleG SouthonS FarmerA PersadR MazurakVC Screening for pediatric malnutrition at hospital admission: which screening tool is best? Nutr Clin Pract 2020 35 951 8 DokalK AsmarN Shergill-BonnerR MutalibM Nutrition evaluation screening tool: an easy to use screening tool for hospitalised children Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr 2021 24 90 9 LeeYJ YangHR Comparison of four nutritional screening tools for Korean hospitalized children Nutr Res Pract 2019 13 410 4 SayedS El-ShabrawiMH AbdelmonaemE El KoofyN TarekS Value of nutritional screening tools versus anthropometric measurements in evaluating nutritional status of children in a low/middle-income country Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr 2023 26 213 23 MalekiantaghiA AsnaAshariK Shabani-MirzaeeH VigehM SadatinezhadM EftekhariK Evaluation of the risk of malnutrition in hospitalized children by PYMS, STAMP, and STRONGkids tools and comparison with their anthropometric indices: a cross-sectional study BMC Nutr 2022 8 33 TeixeiraAF VianaKD Nutritional screening in hospitalized pediatric patients: a systematic review J Pediatr (Rio J) 2016 92 343 52 Dos SantosCA RibeiroAQ RosaCOB de AraújoVE FranceschiniSD Nutritional risk in pediatrics by StrongKids: a systematic review Eur J Clin Nutr 2019 73 1441 9 LeeYJ Nutritional screening tools among hospitalized children: from past to present Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr 2018 21 79 85 HilbrandsJ FeulingMB SzaboA TengBQ FabusN FrohM Nutrition screening in the pediatric intensive care unit: evaluation of an electronic medical record-based tool Nutrients 2023 15 4591 ChourdakisM HechtC GerasimidisK JoostenKF Karagiozoglou-LampoudiT KoetseHA Malnutrition risk in hospitalized children: use of 3 screening tools in a large European population Am J Clin Nutr 2016 103 1301 10 HuysentruytK DevrekerT DejonckheereJ De SchepperJ VandenplasY CoolsF Accuracy of nutritional screening tools in assessing the risk of undernutrition in hospitalized children J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2015 61 159 66 ReedM MullaneyK RuhmannC MarchP ConteVH NoyesL Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Pediatrics (STAMP) in the electronic health record: a validation study Nutr Clin Pract 2020 35 1087 93 Table

Characteristics of important tools used to screen hospitalized children for nutritional risks

Tool Country of origin Validation sites Target population Components assessed Purpose/ aims Scoring/ outcome
STAMP [30-32] UK UK, Europe, Australia, etc. Medical and Surgical (Pediatric population) Nutritional intake, weight and height changes, clinical condition Screen for malnutrition in children Scores used to trigger action based on risk levels
PYMS [17,33] UK Primarily in the UK and Europe Pediatric patients (hospitalized) Weight loss, nutritional intake, body mass index (BMI), and acute disease Identify children at risk of malnutrition Stratifies risk as low medium or high
STRONGkids [19,27,34] Netherland US, UK, Europe, etc. Pediatric patients (hospitalized) Recent weight changes, subjective nutritional assessment, food intake, and underlying illness Identify the risk of malnutrition Guide the necessary intervention and follow-up
PNST [35,36] Australia Canada Pediatric patients (hospitalized) Weight loss, poor weight gain, dietary intake, and subjective weight assessment by the healthcare worker Identify undernutrition or risk for undernutrition Undernutrition or Nutritional risk
SGNA [15,25-27] USA USA, Europe, and Asia General (pediatric population) History Clinical findings, Functional status Evaluate nutritional risk based on subjective criteria Categorize individuals as well-nourished, at-risk, or malnourished
NEST [37] USA USA and European countries General (pediatric population) Weight loss, appetite, BMI, and disease impact Quickly screen for nutritional risks in clinical settings Provides a risk level with guidance for further action
PNRS [20,38] France Korea Medical and surgical (pediatric population) Anthropometry, food intake, ability to eat and retain food, symptoms interfering with food intake, and disease severity Identify the risk of undernutrition Nutritional status deterioration during hospital stay

STAMP, Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Pediatrics; PYMS, Pediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score; STRONGkids, Screening Tool for Risk of Nutritional Status and Growth; PNST, Pediatric Nutrition Screening Tool; SGNA, Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment; NEST, Nutrition Evaluation Screening Tool; PNRS, Pediatric Nutritional Risk Score.