Comparison of Professional Judgment Versus an Algorithm for Nutrition Status Classification

Lowery, Julie C.; Hiller, Lynn D.; Davis, Jennifer; Shore, Carole J.

doi:10.1097/00005650-199811000-00007

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intended administrator (6) Study administrator (7) Satisfied a criteria (8) Subjective b assessment (9) Criteria c based (10) Total d score (11) Other e Nutritional screening and assessment tools 65 publications (Gilford & Khun Khun, 1996;Lowery et al, 1998).…”

Section: Content and Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies obtained nutritional status from the results of multivariate analyses (Elmore et al, 1994;Ward et al, 1998) or use of algorithms (Guo et al, 1994;Lowery et al, 1998), but full details were not published by Lowery et al (1998).…”

Section: Derivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kovacevich et al (1997) calculated the number of subjects, Bryan et al (1998) considered both the number of subjects and raters, and Lowery et al (1998), having determined the number of subjects by time restraints, computed the number of raters. Kovacevich et al (1997) calculated the number of subjects, Bryan et al (1998) considered both the number of subjects and raters, and Lowery et al (1998), having determined the number of subjects by time restraints, computed the number of raters.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies determined nutritional status or risk of malnutrition with the aid of a proforma or questionnaire. The form was not included in two Nutritional screening and assessment tools 65 publications (Gilford & Khun Khun, 1996;Lowery et al, 1998).…”

Section: Content and Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The methodology of nutritional screening and assessment tools

Jones

2002

J Human Nutrition Diet

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Content and Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Derivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Content and Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The methodology of nutritional screening and assessment tools

Jones

2002

J Human Nutrition Diet

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The only nutrition paper found, described a comparison of professional judgement used by dietitians and dietetic technicians with an algorithm used for assessment of malnutrition in hospital patients. Finding differences between the level of experience and the reliability of the professional judgement, the inter-rater reliability of the algorithm was preferred (Lowery et al, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What to ask in a self-administered dietary assessment website: The role of professional judgement

Probst

Tapsell

2007

Journal of Food Composition and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Professional judgement is a key component of questionnaire development, subjective in nature and rarely reported in this context. It is required in dietary questionnaires to delimit the size whilst retaining quality of the data. Objectives: To describe the nature and extent of professional judgement involved in developing a food database to include in a web-based self-administered dietary assessment. Methods & materials: Professional judgement was applied in tandem with a stepwise statistical analysis of hierarchically reported foods in the Australian National Nutrition Survey (NNS95). Statistical analyses determined foods commonly consumed and eaten together and three different forms of cluster analysis were then used to group foods that were most similar in macronutrient content. Professional judgement was required to interpret these groupings and determine the most suitable clustering technique. Face validity of the resulting food groups was determined by recognition of the food name by experienced dietitians, as usually reported in a diet history interview. Results: Applying professional judgement to differentiate between foods after the cluster analysis resulted in an increase from 370 to 501 food groups. A final three-level hierarchy of 19, 103 and 422 groups in the new database compared with 21, 106 and 370 groups of NNS95 was developed. Conclusions: The use of professional judgement in database development is an important step when they are to be used in self-adminstered assessments. It ensures foods are not only nutritionally appropriate but also conceptually appropriate for recognition by a layperson.

show abstract

Identifying Critically Ill Veterans Who Require Nutrition Intervention: A Quality Improvement Study Comparing Nutrition Risk Tools

Hiller

Metzger

2019

Nut in Clin Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Identification of intensive care unit (ICU) patients who require nutrition intervention is crucial to initiating nutrition therapy. This prospective quality improvement study evaluated the Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) 2002, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (NUTRIC) score in comparison with the Veterans Administration Nutrition Status Classification (VANSC) tool to determine which best identified the need for nutrition intervention. Methods: A convenience sample of 150 ICU patients was evaluated using the VANSC, NRS 2002, MUST, and the NUTRIC score. The resultant score, need for nutrition intervention, and presence of malnutrition were recorded for patients. Interventions were defined as need for enteral or parenteral nutrition, nutritional supplements, or diet change. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), F1 score, and accuracy to predict need for nutrition intervention were calculated for each screening tool. Results: Of the 150 patients, 49 (33%) required 1 or more nutrition interventions. The NRS 2002 (0.878) and VANSC (0.816) had the highest sensitivity. The NUTRIC (0.921) and VANSC (0.911) had the highest specificity. The VANSC (0.816) and MUST (0.687) had the highest PPV. The VANSC (0.911) and NRS 2002 (0.872) had the highest NPV. The VANSC (0.727) and MUST (0.528) had the highest MCC. The VANSC (0.816) and MUST (0.680) had the highest F1 score. Conclusions: Trialing several tools to identify their efficacy and reliability individual setting may help determine the most appropriate tool to utilize for your patient population and specific goals. (Nutr Clin Pract. 2019;34:414-420)

show abstract

Comparison of Professional Judgment Versus an Algorithm for Nutrition Status Classification

Cited by 9 publications

References 30 publications

The methodology of nutritional screening and assessment tools

The methodology of nutritional screening and assessment tools

What to ask in a self-administered dietary assessment website: The role of professional judgement

Identifying Critically Ill Veterans Who Require Nutrition Intervention: A Quality Improvement Study Comparing Nutrition Risk Tools

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About