Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Aims Identify nutrition screening tools used in obesity research and qualitatively assess their appropriateness for evaluating nutritional risk in adults receiving obesity treatment, including with obesity management medications (OMMs) in outpatient clinical settings. Materials and Methods A systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase (29‐January‐2026) along with relevant conference websites (22‐March‐2026) targeted published studies in English of non‐hospitalized adults with obesity or overweight that used a screening tool for nutritional risk (inadequate dietary intake and/or undernutrition). Studies were manually reviewed and summarized to identify tools. Identified tools were obtained and considered for practical use in outpatient settings (e.g., length, complexity). Practical tools were qualitatively assessed for capture of clinically‐informed nutritional risk concepts in obesity treatment (e.g., weight loss, energy intake and gastrointestinal symptoms). Results Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria and were summarized. Semi‐quantitative food frequency questionnaires ( n = 11) and an unavailable nutrition performance questionnaire ( n = 1) did not meet practical considerations. Three tools were qualitatively assessed: International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Nutrition Checklist, Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ) and Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants–Short Form (REAP‐S). Concepts relevant to nutritional risk with obesity treatment were not adequately captured by these identified tools. Notable missing concepts included weight loss, fluid intake, gastrointestinal symptoms, history of bariatric surgery and comorbid conditions. Conclusions Identified tools did not capture key concepts for assessing nutritional risk in adults receiving obesity treatment. Thus, development of new nutrition screening tools is needed to capture these concepts in ways that are actionable for clinicians in general outpatient settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schueren et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: