scholarly journals Malnutrition in Hospitalised Children—An Evaluation of the Efficacy of Two Nutritional Screening Tools

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1279
Author(s):  
Christina N. Katsagoni ◽  
Olga Cheirakaki ◽  
Anastasia Hatzoglou ◽  
Ourania Zerva ◽  
Alexandra Koulieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
World Health ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Greek Hospitals ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening

Nutritional risk screening (NRS) is not yet established in many clinical settings. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two NRS tools; the Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS) and the Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP), compared to the global dietitians’ clinical judgment. The goal of this study was also to estimate the prevalence of nutritional risk in Greek paediatric patients. Overall, 1506 children, 1–16 years, from paediatric and surgical wards of two Greek hospitals were included. NRS was performed using PYMS and STAMP based either on World Health Organization (WHOGC) or Hellenic growth charts (HGC). The first 907 children were also referred to dietitians who categorized children in low, medium and high nutritional risk according to their global clinical judgment. PYMS, either based on WHOGC or HGC, showed better agreement with dietitians’ feedback (kPYMS_WHO = 0.47; 95%CI: 0.41–0.52, kPYMS_HGC = 0.48; 95%CI: 0.43–0.53) compared to STAMP (kSTAMP_WHO = 0.28; 95%CI: 0.23–0.33, kSTAMP_HGC = 0.26; 95%CI: 0.21–0.32). PYMS also showed the best diagnostic accuracy compared to STAMP in paediatrics and surgical wards separately. Moreover, the PYMS showed similar sensitivity to the STAMP (WHOGC: 82% vs. 84.4%), but a higher positive predictive value (WHOGC: 58.2 vs. 38.7). Using PYMS, high and medium malnutrition risk was observed at 14.9%, and 13.1% of children, respectively. Almost 28% of hospitalised children were at nutritional risk. Children in hospitals should be screened with effective and feasible NRS tools such as PYMS.

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 Development of a simple and valid nutrition screening tool for pediatric hospitalized patients with acute illness

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Hoda Atef ◽  
Rasha Abdel-Raouf ◽  
Ahmed S. Zeid ◽  
Eman H. Elsebaie ◽  
Shaimaa Abdalaleem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Computer Games ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Acute Illness ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Appetite Loss ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Watching Tv

Background: Nutritional screening, intervention and assessment in patients with undernutrition are key components of any nutritional care. The goal of any nutritional assessment is to determine the specific nutritional risk(s). Presently, there are no guidelines on any ideal screening tool to be used on admission for identification of children that are at risk of developing malnutrition during their hospital stay. The objective of the study was to develop a valid and simple nutritional screening tool which can be used on hospital admission to identify pediatric patients at risk of malnutrition. Methods: This study was cross sectional analytical that enrolled children (n:161) admitted with acute illness to the general wards at Cairo University Children Hospitals (CUCH). The answers to the developed questionnaire were compared to the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), those with high accuracy (≥80%) were used for validity with anthropometric measures. Results: In the ‘less than two years of age’ group, the simple and valid nutritional screening tools were the following questions: (Is there a problem during breast-feeding?), (Is there scanty breast milk?), (Is there appetite loss?). The simple and valid nutritional screening tools during the ‘early childhood’ group were the following questions: (Is there appetite loss?), (Is there any skipping of meals?), (Are they watching TV, videotapes and/or playing computer games for more than two hours/day?). The simple and valid  nutritional screening tools during the ‘late childhood’ group were the following questions: (Is there appetite loss?), (Are they watching TV, videotapes and/or playing computer games for more than two hours/day?). Conclusion: The simple and valid nutritional screening tools differ according to age groups. The one which is valid in all ages is the question about the appetite loss.

scholarly journals Triagem nutricional em adultos hospitalizados

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 589-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariur Gomes Beghetto ◽  
Bibiana Manna ◽  
Andréia Candal ◽  
Elza Daniel de Mello ◽  
Carisi Anne Polanczyk
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
Mini Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Nutrition Risk ◽  
Nutritional Risk Index ◽  
Assessment Questionnaire ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening

Em hospitais, o objetivo de um procedimento de triagem nutricional é identificar indivíduos desnutridos ou em risco de desnutrição, possibilitando intervenção nutricional precoce e melhor alocação de recursos. Diferentes métodos são apresentados na literatura para esta finalidade: Malnutrition Screening Tool, Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire, Nutritional Risk Index, Nutrition Risk Score, Nutritional Risk Screening, Mini Nutritional Assessment, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Nutritional Screening Tool, Nutritional Screening Equation. No entanto, o emprego de muitos destes instrumentos está limitado pela inadequada metodologia empregada na derivação e/ou validação, pela seleção de grupos específicos de pacientes, pela pouca praticidade ou por necessidade de um especialista para seu emprego. Na ausência de um padrão de referência para emitir o diagnóstico nutricional, desfechos clínicos relevantes devem balizar a derivação e a validação de novos instrumentos. Este trabalho descreve os instrumentos de triagem nutricional acima referidos e apresenta considerações quanto ao seu emprego para adultos hospitalizados não selecionados.

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.

scholarly journals Development and Validation of Self-screening Tool for Nutrition Risk in Patients With Gastric Cancer After Gastrectomy: A STUDY PROTOCOL

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiming Chen ◽  
Haichi Yu ◽  
Hua Yuan ◽  
Jia Wang ◽  
Qiuchen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
Nutrition Risk ◽  
Verification Methods ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening ◽  
At Home

Abstract Background: The incidence of malnutrition in patients with gastric cancer after surgery is 59%. The main reason for the high incidence of malnutrition is untimely nutrition screening and low compliance with nutrition treatment. In order to enable home patients to know their nutritional status in time, we have developed and validated nutritional risk screening tools for patients with gastric cancer to help patients’ at home find nutritional risks in time and seek medical help. This article introduces the development and verification methods and statistical methods of the tool.Methods: The development of self-nutrition risk screening tool for patients with gastric cancer after gastrectomy (SNRSGC) is divided into four parts：Steps1Identification of a potential referred nutritional risk screening; Steps2Item generation and scoring are selected through literature review methods to screen sensitive indicators that can reflect the nutritional characteristics of patients after gastric cancer surgery, establish the frame and update according to the latest guidelines ；Steps3Item reduction is determined by the rating of SNRSGC items by an expert panel and piloting method to determine the final item; Steps4 In the validation stage, we conducted research design based on the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist to evaluate the content validity, structure validity, interpretability, and retest validity of SNRSGC.Discussion: SNRSGC is the first screening tool specifically to predict nutrition risk for stay-at-home postoperative patients with gastric cancer.SNRSGC may provide action guidelines and knowledge guidance for patients with gastric cancer at home.Trial registration: Identifier on Chinese Clinical Trials Registry : ChiCTR2100041809 , registered January 06, 2021.

Outcome of nutritional screening in the acute paediatric setting

2016 ◽  
Vol 101 (12) ◽  
pp. 1119-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
P C Thomas ◽  
L V Marino ◽  
S A Williams ◽  
R M Beattie
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Thin Body ◽  
Z Score ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Acute Setting ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

IntroductionMultiple nutritional risk assessment tools are available, but there are limited data on their application in the acute setting. We explored the validity of two tools in a tertiary Children's Hospital's acute unit and the cohort's nutritional status using WHO definitions.MethodsProspective study n=300 (median 38 months; 44.6% female; 25.7% ≤12 months). Participants had standard anthropometry measured, all were screened using the Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP), the Paediatric Malnutrition Screening Tool (PMST) (modified STAMP) and 125 were additionally screened using the Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Screening (PYMS) tool.ResultsThe percentages with medium/high nutritional risk were as follows: STAMP 73.1%, PMST 79.3% and PYMS 30%. Height/weight were normally distributed with: 3.4% stunted (height-for-age z-score <−2); aged ≤ 5 years, 6.8% wasted (weight-for-height z-score (WHZ) <−2), 17.9% overweight (WHZ 1–2) and 6.2% obese (WHZ >2); aged >5 years, 5.8% thin (body mass index (BMI)-z-score (BAZ) <−2), 17.3% overweight (BAZ 1–2) and 5.8% obese (BAZ >2). The tools showed poor specificity and variable sensitivities when compared with WHO malnutrition criteria, with positive predictive values of <50%. κ-Analysis also showed poor agreement between the tools and the WHO cut-offs.ConclusionThese results suggest that nutritional screening tools have poor sensitivity and are difficult to interpret in the acute setting. It may be more effective to include the assessment of weight and height and nutritional intake in the context of the acute presentation as part of routine clinical assessment rather than relying on screening tools to identify those at risk.

scholarly journals New screening tool for neonatal nutritional risk in China: a validation study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e042467
Author(s):  
Mei Zhou ◽  
Yuwei Li ◽  
Huaying Yin ◽  
Xianhong Zhang ◽  
Yan Hu
Keyword(s):  
Validation Study ◽  
Head Circumference ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Spearman Correlation ◽  
Nutrition Risk ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening

ObjectiveA neonatal nutritional risk screening tool (NNRST) was developed by using Delphi and analytic hierarchy processes in China. We verified the accuracy of this tool and analysed whether it effectively screened neonates with nutritional risk.DesignProspective validation study.Setting and participantsIn total, 338 neonates who were admitted to the neonatal unit of Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from May–July 2016 completed the study. Nutritional risk screening and length and head circumference measurements were performed weekly. Weight was measured every morning, and other relevant clinical data were recorded during hospitalisation.Main outcome measuresWe evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, validity, reliability, and positive and negative predictive value of the screening tool. Various characteristics of neonates in different risk groups were analysed to determine the rationality of the nutritional risk classification.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 85.11%, 91.07%, 60.61% and 97.43%, respectively. The criterion validity was texted by the Spearman correlation analysis (r=0.530) and independent samples non-parametric tests (p=0.000). The content validity (Spearman correlation coefficient) was 0.321–0.735. The inter-rater reliability (kappa value) was 0.890. Among the neonatal clinical indicators, gestational age, birth weight, length, admission head circumference, admission albumin, admission total proteins, discharge weight, discharge length and head circumference decreased with increasing nutrition risk level; the length of stay and the rate of parenteral nutrition support increased with increasing nutrition risk level. In the comparison of complications during hospitalisation, the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis and congenital gastrointestinal malformation increased with increasing nutrition risk level.ConclusionThe validation results for the NNRST are reliable. The tool can be used to preliminarily determine the degree of neonatal nutritional risk, but its predictive value needs to be determined in future large-sample studies.Trial registration numberChiCTR2000033743.

scholarly journals A comparison of nutritional-risk screening tools in an acute specialist cardio-thoracic NHS Trust

2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (OCE3) ◽  
Author(s):  
E. M. Robson ◽  
G. V. Ravenhill ◽  
F. Gorman ◽  
M. Carby ◽  
S. Collins
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document