Evaluation of the nutritional status of older hospitalised geriatric patients: a comparative analysis of a Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) version and the Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS 2002)

Christner, S.; Ritt, Martin; Volkert, Dorothee; Wirth, Rainer; Sieber, Cornel; Gaßmann, K-G

doi:10.1111/jhn.12376

Cited by 32 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are many nutrition screening tools currently being used in the hospital and the community, some more sophisticated and others simpler, 5,51-57 encompassing the general patient or more specific disease-related populations 5,54,[56][57][58][59][60][61] and supported by clinical nutrition societies. 3,5,62 In thesis, the ideal screening tool should be easy and quick to use and have high sensitivity and specificity, with good accuracy in detecting the nutrition risk while identifying nutritionrelated outcomes.…”

Section: Nutrition Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrition Screening vs Nutrition Assessment: What’s the Difference?

Correia

2017

Nut in Clin Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screening and assessment imply different processes, with the former indicating risk factors for a deprived nutrition condition and the latter providing the nutrition diagnosis. Both should be routinely performed at hospital admission according to recommended guidelines; however, this is not the reality worldwide, and undernutrition remains highly prevalent in the hospital setting. Therefore, the objective of the current review is to delve into the principles leading to nutrition status deficiencies and how they should be addressed by screening and assessment. A critical appraisal for the reasons associated with the misunderstanding between screening and assessing is proposed without further discussing the many available screening tools while approaching some of the assessment instruments. (Nutr Clin Pract. 2018;33:62-72)

show abstract

Section: Nutrition Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrition Screening vs Nutrition Assessment: What’s the Difference?

Correia

2017

Nut in Clin Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some older people are active and fit, whereas others show complex health status with diverse, adverse medical conditions (eg, malnutrition,3,4 sarcopenia,5 and mobility impairment6), chronic diseases, and/or disability. These latter individuals may be frail or at least at risk of becoming frail 7–9.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operationalizing a frailty index using routine blood and urine tests

Ritt

Jäger²,

Ritt³

et al. 2017

CIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUncomplicated frailty instruments are desirable for use in a busy clinical setting. The aim of this study was to operationalize a frailty index (FI) from routine blood and urine tests, and to evaluate the properties of this FI compared to other frailty instruments.Materials and methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on 306 patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized on geriatric wards. An FI comprising 22 routine blood parameters and one standard urine parameter (FI-Lab), a 50-item FI based on a comprehensive geriatric assessment (FI-CGA), a combined FI (FI-combined [items from the FI-Lab + others from the FI-CGA]), the Clinical Frailty Scale, rule-based frailty definition, and frailty phenotype were operationalized from data obtained during patients’ hospital stays (ie, before discharge [baseline examination]). Follow-up data were obtained up to 1 year after the baseline examination.ResultsThe mean FI-Lab score was 0.34±15, with an upper limit of 0.74. The FI-Lab was correlated with all the other frailty instruments (all P<0.001). The FI-Lab revealed an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 6-month and 1-year mortality of 0.765 (0.694–0.836) and 0.769 (0.706–0.833), respectively (all P<0.001). Each 0.01 increment in FI-Lab increased the risk (adjusted for age and sex) for 6-month and 1-year mortality by 7.2% and 7.1%, respectively (all adjusted P<0.001). When any of the other FIs (except the FI-combined) were also included in the models, each 0.01 increment in FI-Lab score was associated with an increase in the risk of 6-month and 1-year mortality by 4.1%–5.4% (all adjusted P<0.001).ConclusionThe FI-Lab showed key characteristics of an FI. The FI-Lab can be applied as a single frailty measure or in combination with/in addition to other frailty instruments.

show abstract

“…Special attention should be also given to the nutritional screening tools, which constitute the primary intervention in the treatment of AA. MNA‐Short Form and MNA‐Long Form are considered among the best screening questionnaires, with a high accuracy for the prediction of malnourished elderly subjects, although the most recent versions of Nutritional Risk Screening also show good results in terms of compliance of subsequent nutritional treatments in younger residents of multiple healthcare sites, and perhaps this result could be significant also for older adults . Additionally, the use of body composition and functional assessment techniques has become more frequent in the evaluation of nutritional status, with an improvement of the health outcomes of subjects, although clinical practice should evolve even more in this area, moving beyond current approaches .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are the therapeutic strategies in anorexia of ageing effective on nutritional status? A systematic review with meta‐analysis

Perna

Rondanelli

Spadaccini

et al. 2018

J Human Nutrition Diet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The different variants of AA need to be defined because diverse therapeutic approaches are available. A more precise definition of the functional impairments associated with AA may allow a more correct decision about the most appropriate therapy to be prescribed. Moreover, this may allow for a more effective performance of the different therapeutic approaches once they are better targeted to the different scenarios of AA.

show abstract

Evaluation of the nutritional status of older hospitalised geriatric patients: a comparative analysis of a Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) version and the Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS 2002)

Abstract: The MNA-SF version emerged as a useful tool for evaluating the nutritional status of hospitalised geriatric patients. The NRS 2002 part 1 showed limited value as a prescreening aid in relation to the NRS 2002 part 2 in the same group of patients.

Cited by 32 publications

References 47 publications

Nutrition Screening vs Nutrition Assessment: What’s the Difference?

Nutrition Screening vs Nutrition Assessment: What’s the Difference?

Operationalizing a frailty index using routine blood and urine tests

Are the therapeutic strategies in anorexia of ageing effective on nutritional status? A systematic review with meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About