Different methods have been proposed for the assessment of the nutritional status in frailty phenotypes. In the present narrative review article, we have summarized the number and specifications of nutritional items in existing frailty tools, in order to develop a possible means of assessment and operational definition of the nutritional frailty phenotype. In six different databases until December 2019, we searched for original articles regarding frailty tools (i.e., scales, indexes, scores, questionnaires, instruments, evaluations, screening, indicators), analyzing each tool regarding nutritional items. We identified 160 articles describing 71 frailty tools. Among the selected frailty tools, 54 were community-based (70 %), 17 hospital-based (22 %), 4 validated in long-term care institutions for older adults (LTCIOA) (5.1 %) and 2 validated in both community- and hospital-based settings, including LTCIOA (2.5 %). Fifty-two of these tools (73 %) included at least one nutritional item. Twenty-two (42 %) reported two or more nutritional items. The items were grouped in the following categories: A) anthropometric measurements, B) laboratory measurements, and C) other nutritional-related measurements. Anthropometric measurements stood out compared to all other items. Nutritional items are included in the majority of frailty tools, strengthening the concept that they may have a direct implication on an increased risk of adverse health-related outcomes in frail subjects. This supports the development of the concept of nutritional frailty as an independent frailty phenotype. Subsequent steps will be to assess the contribution of each nutritional item to a possible operational definition of nutritional frailty and define the items that may best identify this new frailty phenotype.

已经提出了不同的方法来评估脆弱表型的营养状况。在本篇叙事性评论文章中，我们总结了现有脆弱性工具中营养项目的数量和规格，以开发一种评估营养性表型的可能方法和操作定义。截止到2019年12月，我们在六个不同的数据库中搜索了有关脆弱性工具的原始文章（例如，量表，指标，分数，问卷，工具，评估，筛选，指标），并分析了有关营养项目的每种工具。我们确定了160篇文章，描述了71种脆弱的工具。在所选的脆弱工具中，有54种基于社区（70％），17种基于医院（22％），其中4种在老年人的长期护理机构（LTCIOA）中得到验证（5。1％）和2个在基于社区和医院的环境中得到了验证，包括LTCIOA（2.5％）。其中的52种工具（占73％）包括至少一种营养食品。22个（42％）报告了两个或更多的营养项目。这些项目分为以下几类：A）人体测量，B）实验室测量和C）其他与营养相关的测量。与所有其他项目相比，人体测量学表现突出。营养项目已包含在大多数脆弱的工具中，强化了这样的观念，即它们可能直接影响脆弱受试者的与健康相关的不良后果的风险增加。这支持了营养脆弱作为一种独立的脆弱表型的概念的发展。