¿Cómo detectar a los pacientes mayores no institucionalizados en riesgo de malnutrición durante su hospitalización? Comparación de 8 herramientas de cribado de malnutrición o de riesgo nutricional
I. García-Fuente , L. Corral-Gudino , M. Gabella-Martín , V.E. Olivet-de-la-Fuente , J. Pérez-Nieto , P. Miramontes-González
{"title":"¿Cómo detectar a los pacientes mayores no institucionalizados en riesgo de malnutrición durante su hospitalización? Comparación de 8 herramientas de cribado de malnutrición o de riesgo nutricional","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.rce.2024.02.006","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 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%; 95%<!--> <!-->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":21223,"journal":{"name":"Revista clinica espanola","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014256524000626/pdfft?md5=98c82139741530d5e1e0ca205af50523&pid=1-s2.0-S0014256524000626-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista clinica espanola","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014256524000626","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","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 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%; 95% 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.
期刊介绍:
Revista Clínica Española published its first issue in 1940 and is the body of expression of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI).
The journal fully endorses the goals of updating knowledge and facilitating the acquisition of key developments in internal medicine applied to clinical practice. Revista Clínica Española is subject to a thorough double blind review of the received articles written in Spanish or English. Nine issues are published each year, including mostly originals, reviews and consensus documents.