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
Which one is a better predictor of prognosis in COVID-19: analytical biomarkers or PaO2/FiO2? The rights and interests of participants as limits to clinical trials. Artificial intelligence in clinical practice: Quality and evidence. Incidence of pregnancy related pulmonary embolism in Spain 2016-2021: an observational population-based retrospective study Soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products positively correlated to kidney injury with coronary heart disease
×
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:481959085
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