Validity of four nutritional screening tools against subjective global assessment for inpatient adults in a low-middle income country in Asia

Trần, Quang Vĩnh; Banks, Merrilyn; Hannan-Jones, Mary; Diep, Thi Ngoc; Gallegos, Danielle

doi:10.1038/s41430-018-0217-8

Cited by 16 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The MNA and the MUST showed better criterion validity. When tools with high sensitivity and specificity are not available, high sensitivity to identify risk is the preferable criterion for selecting a screening instrument because this is essential for directing individualized nutritional management with a focus on improving the patient’s nutritional status [ 47 , 48 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in older people; assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants’ ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the MNA-short form (MNA-sf), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), the Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity; the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss; the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in older adults with COVID-19.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The criterion validity of the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), MUST, NRS-2002, MNA-SF, modified MST (MST combined with low BMI), and BMI as independent tools was assessed in 693 patients from Vietnam using SGA or low BMI (<18.5 kg/m2) as the reference method. Based on specificity and sensitivity, the first choice for the most appropriate assessment tool for use was the NRS-2002 [37]. Zhang et al compared SGA and NRS-2002 in 312 oncologic patients [38].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…High sensitivity to identify risk is an important aspect and the preferable criterion for selecting a screening instrument when tools with high sensitivity and specificity are not available [47,48]. This is justified considering that a false positive diagnosis of nutritional risk can be reassessed later.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is justified considering that a false positive diagnosis of nutritional risk can be reassessed later. Additionally, high sensitivity in early identification of nutritional risk is essential for directing individualized nutritional management with a focus on recovering the patient's nutritional status [47,48]. The NRS-2002 was the only instrument to demonstrate a sensitivity of 100% compared to BMI and of greater than 90% compared to three other nutritional screening instruments (the MNA-sf, MUST, and NRI).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Elderly Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Silva¹,

Lima²,

Sena-Evangelista³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in elderly people; assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants’ ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), MNA-short form (MNA-sf), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity; the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss; the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in elderly COVID-19 patients.

show abstract

Validity of four nutritional screening tools against subjective global assessment for inpatient adults in a low-middle income country in Asia

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

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

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Elderly Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About