How to detect non-institutionalized older patients at risk of malnutrition during their hospitalization? Comparison of 8 screening tools for malnutrition or nutritional risk

I. García-Fuente , L. Corral-Gudino , M. Gabella-Martín , V.E. Olivet-de-la-Fuente , J. Pérez-Nieto , P. Miramontes-González
{"title":"How to detect non-institutionalized older patients at risk of malnutrition during their hospitalization? Comparison of 8 screening tools for malnutrition or nutritional risk","authors":"I. García-Fuente ,&nbsp;L. Corral-Gudino ,&nbsp;M. Gabella-Martín ,&nbsp;V.E. Olivet-de-la-Fuente ,&nbsp;J. Pérez-Nieto ,&nbsp;P. Miramontes-González","doi":"10.1016/j.rceng.2024.03.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The prevalence of malnutrition is high among the elderly population. Hospital admission is a window of opportunity for its detection.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess the concordance of different nutritional scales in hospitalized patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Prospective study in non-institutionalized patients over 65 years of age admitted to an internal medicine department. Five malnutrition screening surveys (MNA, MST, MUST, NRS-2000 and CONUT) and three nutritional risk screening surveys (SCREEN 3, 8 and 14) were compared. As gold standard we use the Global Malnutrition Leadership Initiative for Malnutrition (GLIM) definition of malnutrition.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eighty-five patients (37% female, median age 83 years) were included. Forty-eight percent (95% CI 38–59%) of patients were classified as malnourished according to GLIM criteria. The SCREEN 3 scale was the most sensitive (93%; 95% CI 87–98) and MUST the most specific (91%; CI 85–99). The most effective scale for excluding suspected malnutrition was SCREEN 3 (LR− 0.17; 95% CI 0.05−0.53) and the best for confirming it was MST (LR+ 7.08; 95% CI 3.06–16.39). Concordance between the different scales was low or very low with kappa indices between 0.082 and 0.465.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>A comprehensive approach is needed to detect malnutrition in hospitalized patients. More sensitive scales are more useful in initial screening. Nutritional risk tools could be effective at this stage. In a second step, malnutrition should be confirmed according to established criteria such as GLIM.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94354,"journal":{"name":"Revista clinica espanola","volume":"224 4","pages":"Pages 217-224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista clinica espanola","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2254887424000419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The prevalence of malnutrition is high among the elderly population. Hospital admission is a window of opportunity for its detection.

Objective

To assess the concordance of different nutritional scales in hospitalized patients.

Methods

Prospective study in non-institutionalized patients over 65 years of age admitted to an internal medicine department. Five malnutrition screening surveys (MNA, MST, MUST, NRS-2000 and CONUT) and three nutritional risk screening surveys (SCREEN 3, 8 and 14) were compared. As gold standard we use the Global Malnutrition Leadership Initiative for Malnutrition (GLIM) definition of malnutrition.

Results

Eighty-five patients (37% female, median age 83 years) were included. Forty-eight percent (95% CI 38–59%) of patients were classified as malnourished according to GLIM criteria. The SCREEN 3 scale was the most sensitive (93%; 95% CI 87–98) and MUST the most specific (91%; CI 85–99). The most effective scale for excluding suspected malnutrition was SCREEN 3 (LR− 0.17; 95% CI 0.05−0.53) and the best for confirming it was MST (LR+ 7.08; 95% CI 3.06–16.39). Concordance between the different scales was low or very low with kappa indices between 0.082 and 0.465.

Conclusions

A comprehensive approach is needed to detect malnutrition in hospitalized patients. More sensitive scales are more useful in initial screening. Nutritional risk tools could be effective at this stage. In a second step, malnutrition should be confirmed according to established criteria such as GLIM.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何检测住院期间有营养不良风险的非住院老年患者?比较 8 种营养不良或营养风险筛查工具。
背景:营养不良在老年人口中的发病率很高。入院是发现营养不良的机会之窗:评估住院患者不同营养量表的一致性:方法:对在内科住院的 65 岁以上非住院患者进行前瞻性研究。比较了五种营养不良筛查调查(MNA、MST、MUST、NRS-2000 和 CONUT)和三种营养风险筛查调查(SCREEN 3、8 和 14)。我们采用全球营养不良领导倡议(GLIM)的营养不良定义作为金标准:共纳入 85 名患者(37% 为女性,中位年龄为 83 岁)。根据 GLIM 标准,48%(95% CI 38-59%)的患者被归类为营养不良。SCREEN 3量表的灵敏度最高(93%;95% CI 87-98),MUST的特异度最高(91%;CI 85-99)。排除疑似营养不良的最有效量表是 SCREEN 3(LR- 0.17;95% CI 0.05-0.53),而确认营养不良的最佳量表是 MST(LR + 7.08;95% CI 3.06-16.39)。不同量表之间的一致性较低或很低,卡帕指数介于 0.082 和 0.465 之间:结论:需要采用综合方法来检测住院患者的营养不良状况。结论:需要采用综合方法检测住院病人的营养不良情况,灵敏度较高的量表在初步筛查中更有用。营养风险工具可在此阶段发挥有效作用。第二步,应根据 GLIM 等既定标准确认营养不良。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Social determinants of health: a priority for internal medicine. Position statement of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) and the Portuguese Society of Internal Medicine (SPMI). Current situation and role of internists in healthcare ethics committees in Spain. PANACEAS study. Procalcitonin and midregional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) could help make home hospitalization of patients seen for suspected infection in the Emergency department safer. Emergency room visits by older patients living with HIV: an approach based on the EDEN registry. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: updated diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. SEMI consensus document.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1