scholarly journals Comparison of Three Nutritional Screening Tools with the New Glim Criteria for Malnutrition and Association with Sarcopenia in Hospitalized Older Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Bellanti ◽  
Aurelio Lo Buglio ◽  
Stefano Quiete ◽  
Giuseppe Pellegrino ◽  
Michał Dobrakowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Hospital Admission ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Aged Patients ◽  
European Working ◽  
Nrs 2002

The integrated assessment of nutritional status and presence of sarcopenia would help improve clinical outcomes of in-hospital aged patients. We compared three common nutritional screening tools with the new Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) diagnostic criteria among hospitalized older patients. To this, 152 older patients were assessed consecutively at hospital admission by the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), and the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002). A 46% prevalence of malnutrition was reported according to GLIM. Sensitivity was 64%, 96% and 47%, and specificity was 82%, 15% and 76% with the MUST, SGA, and NRS-2002, respectively. The concordance with GLIM criteria was 89%, 53% and 62% for the MUST, SGA, and NRS-2002, respectively. All the screening tools had a moderate value to diagnose malnutrition. Moreover, patients at high nutritional risk by MUST were more likely to present with sarcopenia than those at low risk (OR 2.5, CI 1.3-3.6). To conclude, MUST is better than SGA and NRS-2002 at detecting malnutrition in hospitalized older patients diagnosed by the new GLIM criteria. Furthermore, hospitalized older patients at high risk of malnutrition according to MUST are at high risk of presenting with sarcopenia. Nutritional status should be determined by MUST in older patients at hospital admission, followed by both GLIM and the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2) assessment.

scholarly journals Nutritional status and screening tools to detect nutritional risk in hospitalized patients with hepatic echinococcosis

Parasite ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Zhan Wang ◽  
Jin Xu ◽  
Ge Song ◽  
MingQuan Pang ◽  
Bin Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
Mini Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Nrs 2002

Background: Echinococcosis is a chronic consumptive liver disease. Little research has been carried out on the nutritional status of infected patients, though liver diseases are often associated with malnutrition. Our study investigated four different nutrition screening tools, to assess nutritional risks of hospitalized patients with echinococcosis. Methods: Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Short Form of Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and the Nutrition Risk Index (NRI) were used to assess 164 patients with alveolar echinococcosis (AE) and 232 with cystic echinococcosis (CE). Results were then compared with European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) criteria for malnutrition diagnosis. Results: According to ESPEN standards for malnutrition diagnosis, 29.2% of CE patients and 31.1% of AE patients were malnourished. The malnutrition risk rates for CE and AE patients were as follows: NRS 2002 – 40.3% and 30.7%; MUST – 51.5% and 50.9%; MNA-SF – 46.8% and 44.1%; and NRI – 51.1% and 67.4%. In patients with CE, MNA-SF and NRS 2002 results correlated well with ESPEN results (k = 0.515, 0.496). Area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of MNA-SF and NRS 2002 were 0.803 and 0.776, respectively. For patients with AE, NRS 2002 and MNA-SF results correlated well with ESPEN (k = 0.555, 0.493). AUC values of NRS 2002 and MNA-SF were 0.776 and 0.792, respectively. Conclusion: This study is the first to analyze hospitalized echinococcosis patients based on these nutritional screening tools. Our results suggest that NRS 2002 and MNA-SF are suitable tools for nutritional screening of inpatients with echinococcosis.

scholarly journals Nutritional Screening and Clinical Outcome in Hospitalized Patients with Crohn’s Disease

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 266-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azusa Takaoka ◽  
Masaya Sasaki  ◽  
Naoko Nakanishi ◽  
Mika Kurihara ◽  
Akiko Ohi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Crohn’S Disease ◽  
Crohn's Disease ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Serum Albumin ◽  
Intestinal Resection ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Characteristic Analysis ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Nrs 2002

Background/Aims: Hospitalized patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) can develop severe nutritional deficits. However, the nutritional screening tools with the most utility for such patients are still unknown. Methods: Nutritional status of 40 CD patients was assessed on admission using several screening tools and laboratory tests. Their validity was evaluated in relation to length of hospital stay (LOS) and intestinal resection. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to predict prolonged LOS (≥28 days). Results: Prolonged LOS was correlated with each of the following screening parameters: Subjective Global Assessment, Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Onodera’s Prognostic Nutritional Index (O-PNI), Controlling Nutritional Status, serum albumin level, and weight loss. These parameters were not correlated with intestinal resection. Evaluation of prognostic yield showed cutoff values of serum albumin 3.3 g/dL (AUC 0.797, sensitivity 57.1%, specificity 89.5%) and O-PNI 36.5 (0.749, 71.4%, 73.7%). By combining the serum albumin cutoff value and NRS 2002 score, patients were divided into 4 groups, with a prolonged LOS rate of 68.2% in the group with the worst prognosis. Conclusions: A combination of serum albumin (given the simplicity of testing) and NRS 2002 as nutritional screening tools may be useful for hospitalized CD patients.

scholarly journals Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Elderly Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Franciole de Oliveira Silva ◽  
Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lima ◽  
Karine Cavalcanti Mauricio Sena-Evangelista ◽  
Dirce Marchioni ◽  
Ricardo Ney Cobucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
Nrs 2002 ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in elderly people; assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants’ ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), MNA-short form (MNA-sf), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity; the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss; the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in elderly COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Nutritional screening based on objective indices at admission predicts in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Feier Song ◽  
Huan Ma ◽  
Shouhong Wang ◽  
Tiehe Qin ◽  
Qing Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Nutritional Risk Index ◽  
Conut Score

Abstract Background Could nutritional status serve as prognostic factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? The present study evaluated the clinical and nutritional characteristics of COVID-19 patients and explored the relationship between risk for malnutrition at admission and in-hospital mortality. Methods A retrospective, observational study was conducted in two hospitals in Hubei, China. Confirmed cases of COVID-19 were typed as mild/moderate, severe, or critically ill. Clinical data and in-hospital death were collected. The risk for malnutrition was assessed using the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), the prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) via objective parameters at admission. Results Two hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled, including 66 severe patients and 41 critically ill patients. Twenty-five deaths were observed, making 8.47% in the whole population and 37.88% in the critically ill subgroup. Patients had significant differences in nutrition-related parameters and inflammatory biomarkers among three types of disease severity. Patients with lower GNRI and PNI, as well as higher CONUT scores, had a higher risk of in-hospital mortality. The receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrated the good prognostic implication of GNRI and CONUT score. The multivariate logistic regression showed that baseline nutritional status, assessed by GNRI, PNI, or CONUT score, was a prognostic indicator for in-hospital mortality. Conclusions Despite variant screening tools, poor nutritional status was associated with in-hospital death in patients infected with COVID-19. This study highlighted the importance of nutritional screening at admission and the new insight of nutritional monitoring or therapy.

scholarly journals Concordância entre ferramentas de triagem nutricional pediátrica em indivíduos com síndrome nefrótica

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 33642
Author(s):  
Paula Emília Nunes Ribeiro Bellot ◽  
Geovanna Torres De Paiva ◽  
Sancha Helena de Lima Vale ◽  
Richele Janaína de Araújo Machado
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Normal Weight ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Anthropometric Parameters ◽  
Upper Arm ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Moderate Agreement

AIMS: To evaluate the concordance between three validated nutritional screening tools for pediatrics among themselves and the correlation with the anthropometric parameters of patients hospitalized with nephrotic syndrome.METHOD: Cross-sectional study with children and adolescents of both sexes hospitalized in the pediatric ward of a university hospital and diagnosed with nephrotic syndrome. Three nutritional screening instruments were applied: Screening of Risk for Nutritional Status and Growth (STRONGkids), Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS) and Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP). Data on weight, height and upper arm perimeter was collected, and three nutritional screening tools were applied: The estimate of relative agreement between the instruments was evaluated with the weighted Kappa test and the correlations with anthropometric parameters were assessed with the Spearman’s Correlation Test.RESULTS: We evaluated 11 patients, with a minimum age of 2 years and a maximum of 10 years. Screening tools detected prevalence of medium and high nutritional risk. Moderate agreement (k=0.47) was observed between PYMS and STAMP and there was no correlation between the screening tools’ result and the anthropometric data. Regarding the anthropometric parameters, 100% of the participants had adequate weight for age, 63.6% of the participants were diagnosed with normal weight by the BMI/Age index and 81.8% had adequate height for age according to the index Height/Age. After analysis of the upper arm perimeter, 27.3% were at risk of malnutrition.CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that are no recommendations for use of pediatric nutritional screening tools specific to each clinical situation, two of the three screening tools analyzed in this study demonstrated moderate agreement between them. However, the tested tools did not reflect the anthropometric nutritional status of the evaluated population.

Nutritional risk in critically ill patients: how it is assessed, its prevalence and prognostic value: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 78 (12) ◽  
pp. 1052-1068
Author(s):  
Aline Cattani ◽  
Igor C Eckert ◽  
Júlia E Brito ◽  
Rafaela F Tartari ◽  
Flávia M Silva
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Outcome Prediction ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Protein Balance ◽  
Nrs 2002

Abstract Context Nutritional risk (NR) screening is the first step of nutrition care process. Few data are available in literature about its prevalence, nor, to our knowledge, is a universally accepted reference method for the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective The aim for this systematic review was to summarize evidence regarding the prevalence of NR and the predictive validity of different tools applied for NR screening of critically ill patients. Data Sources The PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched up to December 2019 using the subject headings related to critically ill patients and NR screening. The current systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019129668). Data Extraction Data on NR prevalence, predictive validity of nutritional screening tools, and interaction between caloric-protein balance and NR in outcome prediction were collected. Data Analysis Results were summarized qualitatively in text and tables, considering the outcomes of interest. Results From 15 669 articles initially identified, 36 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, providing data from 8 nutritional screening tools: modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (mNUTRIC; n = 26 studies) and Nutritional Risk Screening–2002 (NRS-2002; n = 7 studies) were the most frequent; the NR prevalence was 55.9% (range, 16.0% to 99.5%). Nutritional risk was a predictor of 28-day and ICU mortality in 8 studies. Interactions between caloric-protein balance and NR on outcome prediction presented were scarcely tested and presented heterogeneous results (n = 8). Conclusions Prevalence of NR in patients in the ICU varies widely; a satisfactory predictive validity was observed, especially when mNUTRIC or NRS-2002 were applied.

Early nutritional risk assessment by NRS 2002 to predict survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 505-505
Author(s):  
Se Eung Oh ◽  
Hei-Cheul Jeung
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Tract Cancer ◽  
Nrs 2002

505 Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) has heterogenous disease with dismal prognosis. We investigated the predictors of overall survival (OS) among Korean patients with advanced BTC according to their baseline nutritional risks estimated by Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) 2002 score. Methods: From September 2006 to July 2017, we retrospectively reviewed the data of 601 patients with BTC. Data on demographic and clinical parameters were collected from electronic medical records, and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Stepwise Cox regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with survival. Patients with a NRS 2002 score ≤2 were classified as “no-risk; ” those with a score of 3 were classified as “moderate-risk; ” and those with a score of ≥4 were classified as “high-risk.” Results: Following nutritional screening at baseline, 333 patients (55%) were classified as the “no risk” group; 109 patients (18%), as the “moderate risk” group; and 159 patients (27%) as the “high risk” group. Survival analysis showed significant differences in the median OS according to the NRS 2002 groups: “no risk” group: 12.6 months (95% CI: 11.5–13.7); “moderate risk” group: 6.1 months (95% CI: 4.3–8.0); and “high risk” group: 3.9 months (95% CI: 3.2 – 4.6) (p<0.001). On the Cox’s regression analysis, NRS 2002 score came out as the most independent factor for OS (for “moderate-risk” HR 1.610, 95% CI 1.288-2.027, p<0.001; for “high-risk”, HR 2.121, 95% CI 1.728-2.612, p<0.001), compared with other prognostic factors including liver metastasis, peritoneal seeding, white blood cell count, platelet count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, cholesterol, CEA, and CA19-9. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated OS of advanced BTC was strongly related to their baseline nutritional status assessed by NRS 2002. Constitutional nutritional assessment can help to improve patient prognosis through proactive and individualized nutritional intervention. Baseline nutritional status should be integrated for implementing prognostic scoring system, which can provide more sophisticated risk stratification of patients with metastatic BTC.

scholarly journals Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 2956 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Franciole Oliveira Silva ◽  
Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lima ◽  
Karine Cavalcanti Mauricio Sena-Evangelista ◽  
Dirce Maria Marchioni ◽  
Ricardo Ney Cobucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
Nrs 2002 ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in older people; assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants’ ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the MNA-short form (MNA-sf), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), the Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity; the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss; the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in older adults with COVID-19.

scholarly journals Relationship between Nutritional Screening Tools and GLIM in Complicated IBD Requiring Surgery

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 3899
Author(s):  
Camilla Fiorindi ◽  
Gabriele Dragoni ◽  
Stefano Scaringi ◽  
Fabio Staderini ◽  
Anita Nannoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Accurate Identification ◽  
Nrs 2002 ◽  
Low Sensitivity

Background: Accurate identification of malnutrition and preoperative nutritional care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) surgery is mandatory. There is no validated nutritional screening tool for IBD patients. We developed a novel nutritional screening tool for IBD patients requiring surgery and compared it with other tools. Methods: we included 62 consecutive patients scheduled for elective surgery. The IBD Nutritional Screening tool (NS-IBD) was developed to screen patients for further comprehensive assessment. NRS-2002, MUST, MST, MIRT, SaskIBD-NR are compared with the new test. All screening tests were subsequently related to new GLIM criteria. Results: according to GLIM criteria, 25 (40%) IBD patients were malnourished (15 CD and 10 UC, 33% vs. 63%, p = 0.036). Stage 1 malnutrition was reported in ten patients, while stage 2 was detected in 15 patients. The comparison of each nutritional risk tool with GLIM criteria showed sensitivity of 0.52, 0.6, 0.6, 0.84, 0.84 and 0.92 for SASKIBD-NR, MUST, MST, NRS-2002, MIRT, and the new NS-IBD, respectively. Conclusions: in IBD, currently adopted nutritional screening tools are characterized by a low sensitivity when malnutrition diagnosis is performed with recent GLIM criteria. Our proposed tool to detect malnutrition performed the best in detecting patients that may require nutritional assessment and preoperative intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document