I. García-Fuente , L. Corral-Gudino , M. Gabella-Martín , V.E. Olivet-de-la-Fuente , J. Pérez-Nieto , P. Miramontes-González
{"title":"如何检测住院期间有营养不良风险的非住院老年患者?比较 8 种营养不良或营养风险筛查工具。","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.rceng.2024.03.003","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 Malnutrition 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%; 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":94354,"journal":{"name":"Revista clinica espanola","volume":"224 4","pages":"Pages 217-224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to detect non-institutionalized older patients at risk of malnutrition during their hospitalization? Comparison of 8 screening tools for malnutrition or nutritional risk\",\"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.rceng.2024.03.003\",\"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 Malnutrition 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%; 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\":94354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista clinica espanola\",\"volume\":\"224 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 217-224\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista clinica espanola\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2254887424000419\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista clinica espanola","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2254887424000419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:营养不良在老年人口中的发病率很高。入院是发现营养不良的机会之窗:评估住院患者不同营养量表的一致性:方法:对在内科住院的 65 岁以上非住院患者进行前瞻性研究。比较了五种营养不良筛查调查(MNA、MST、MUST、NRS-2000 和 CONUT)和三种营养风险筛查调查(SCREEN 3、8 和 14)。我们采用全球营养不良领导倡议(GLIM)的营养不良定义作为金标准:共纳入 85 名患者(37% 为女性,中位年龄为 83 岁)。根据 GLIM 标准,48%(95% CI 38-59%)的患者被归类为营养不良。SCREEN 3量表的灵敏度最高(93%;95% CI 87-98),MUST的特异度最高(91%;CI 85-99)。排除疑似营养不良的最有效量表是 SCREEN 3(LR- 0.17;95% CI 0.05-0.53),而确认营养不良的最佳量表是 MST(LR + 7.08;95% CI 3.06-16.39)。不同量表之间的一致性较低或很低,卡帕指数介于 0.082 和 0.465 之间:结论:需要采用综合方法来检测住院患者的营养不良状况。结论:需要采用综合方法检测住院病人的营养不良情况,灵敏度较高的量表在初步筛查中更有用。营养风险工具可在此阶段发挥有效作用。第二步,应根据 GLIM 等既定标准确认营养不良。
How to detect non-institutionalized older patients at risk of malnutrition during their hospitalization? Comparison of 8 screening tools for malnutrition or nutritional risk
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 Malnutrition 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%; 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.