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 Evaluation of the effectiveness of eight screening tools in detecting risk of malnutrition in cirrhotic patients: the KIRRHOS study

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (12) ◽  
pp. 1368-1376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Georgiou ◽  
Georgios V. Papatheodoridis ◽  
Alexandra Alexopoulou ◽  
Melanie Deutsch ◽  
Ioannis Vlachogiannakos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Disease ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
Nutritional Risk Index ◽  
Nrs 2002 ◽  
Cirrhotic Patients

AbstractMalnutrition risk screening in cirrhotic patients is crucial, as poor nutritional status negatively affects disease prognosis and survival. Given that a variety of malnutrition screening tools is usually used in routine clinical practice, the effectiveness of eight screening tools in detecting malnutrition risk in cirrhotic patients was sought. A total of 170 patients (57·1 % male, 59·4 (sd 10·5) years, 50·6 % decompensated ones) with cirrhosis of various aetiologies were enrolled. Nutritional screening was performed using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Nutritional Risk Index, Malnutrition Screening Tool, Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002), Birmingham Nutritional Risk Score, Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire, Royal Free Hospital Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT) and Liver Disease Undernutrition Screening Tool (LDUST). Malnutrition diagnosis was defined using the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Data on 1-year survival were available for 145 patients. The prevalence of malnutrition risk varied according to the screening tools used, with a range of 13·5–54·1 %. RFH-NPT and LDUST were the most accurate in detecting malnutrition (AUC = 0·885 and 0·892, respectively) with a high sensitivity (97·4 and 94·9 %, respectively) and fair specificity (73·3 and 58 %, respectively). Malnutrition according to SGA was an independent prognostic factor of within 1-year mortality (relative risk was 2·17 (95 % CI 1·0, 4·7), P = 0·049) after adjustment for sex, age, disease aetiology and Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, whereas nutrition risk according to RFH-NPT, LDUST and NRS-2002 showed no association. RFH-NPT and LDUST were the only screening tools that proved to be accurate in detecting malnutrition in cirrhotic patients.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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 Validation of Malnutrition Screening Tools in Liver Cirrhosis

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Traub ◽  
Ina Bergheim ◽  
Angela Horvath ◽  
Vanessa Stadlbauer
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Liver Cirrhosis ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Mini Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Nrs 2002 ◽  
Validity Criteria ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening

Malnutrition in liver cirrhosis is frequently underestimated. To determine if a patient is at risk of malnutrition, several screening tools have been established. However, most of them are not validated for patients with liver cirrhosis. Therefore, we compared the RFH-NPT (Royal Free Hospital Nutritional Prioritizing Tool) as the validated gold standard for malnutrition screening in cirrhosis patients with GMS (Graz Malnutrition Screening), NRS-2002 (Nutritional Risk Screening) and MNA-SF (Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form). Based on common validity criteria for screening tools, only the MNA-SF showed fair correlation (12/15 points) with the RFH-NPT, whereas NRS-2002 and GMS performed worse (6/15 points). Taken together, our results suggest that NRS-2002 and GMS are not suitable for screening of malnutrition in cirrhosis patients. A cirrhosis-specific screening tool like RFH-NPT should be used to assess malnutrition and to identify those at risk of malnutrition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document