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 , L. Corral-Gudino , M. Gabella-Martín , V.E. Olivet-de-la-Fuente , J. Pérez-Nieto , 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.