Comparison of Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 and Subjective Global Assessment Form as Short Nutrition Assessment Tools in Older Hospitalized Adults

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare two widely recommended short nutrition assessment tools—Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) and Subjective Global Assessment Form (SGA)—with other Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) measurements. The study included 622 consecutively hospitalized older subjects, aged 81.7 ± 7.8 years. The criteria to participate were the ability to communicate and given consent. Both NRS-2002 and SGA were inversely related to anthropometric measurements, functional assessment tests, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and positively associated with the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) score. Results of SGA and NRS-2002 were not related to sex and 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) score. Comparison of well-nourished subjects and patients with suggested problems with nutrition according to NRS-2002 (0–2 vs. 3–7) and SGA (A vs. B + C) gave comparable results. Both nutritional scales at given cut-off points similarly discriminated anthropometric data and other CGA tools in the populations of well-nourished vs. malnourished hospitalized older subjects. In conclusion, we can recommend using both NRS-2002 and SGA to detect malnutrition or risk of malnutrition in a routine clinical practice of the geriatric department ward.

Two Distinct Nutritional Assessment Tools Have Dissimilar Outcomes in a Sample of Older Adult Patients With Cancer

“…Previously, it has been suggested that PG-SGA, compared with the subjective global assessment (SGA), may be highly sensitive in detecting small nutritional changes when performed consecutively, due to its short period for discovering investigative changes in dietary intake and the coverage of gastrointestinal symptoms that have persisted for more than two weeks, which are highly prevalent in cancer patients [23] . Kroc et al (2020), in a prospective cohort study investigating 963 hospitalized elderly people, recommend SGA to detect malnutrition or risk of malnutrition in the clinical routine of the geriatric ward as a result of some of their findings [24] . Along those lines, another study investigating a population of 57 patients whose average age was 79.1 years reported that MNA showed a specificity of 97%, whilst its sensitivity was only 58%, and the ROC area was 0.854, as compared to the standard classification 'International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10 th Revision, Australian Modification' (ICD-10-AM) [25] .…”

Risk of Malnutrition upon Admission and after Discharge in Acutely Admitted Older Medical Patients: A Prospective Observational Study

“…NRS-2002 and MNA-SF presented with the highest agreement at baseline, classifying 80% of the participants similarly with a kappa value of 0.57. These two screening tools are also the only two that are validated in a hospital setting [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 ] and a high agreement was expected due to similarities on acute disease, BMI and food intake. Velasco et al, however, compared the Full-MNA and NRS-2002 in newly admitted medical and surgical patients above the age of 18 years and found an agreement of 68% and a kappa value of 0.39 [ 56 ].…”

“…A secondary screening score ≥ 3 indicates that the patient is at risk of malnutrition [ 30 ]. NRS-2002 has shown good predictive validity with regard to length of stay [ 31 ] and concurrent validity with subjective global assessment (sensitivity: 77% and specificity: 87%) in older hospitalized adults [ 32 ].…”

Effect of ultrasound-guided targeted needling of the cricopharyngeal muscle on post-stroke cricopharyngeal dysphagia: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial

“…The specific scoring criteria are shown in Table 5. The reference material passes through the vocal folds, residue is visible under the vocal folds, and the patient does not respond (6) Nutritional risk screening assessment [42] The Nutritional Risk Screening Method (NRS) was used to assess the patient's upper arm circumference (midway between the shoulder dislocation and the elbow joint) and calf circumference (about 10 cm below the lower edge of the patella), which were measured and recorded by a soft ruler. The scoring system included the severity of the primary disease (0 to 3 points), the status of nutritional impairment at admission (0 to 3 points), and age ≥70 years plus 1 point, for a total score of 0 to 7 points.…”