住院患者营养评估和筛选工具的比较:一项外科患者的研究。

IF 1.1 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Susetyowati Susetyowati, Amalia Sarah Sholikhati, Dinda Krisma Cahyaningrum, Azizah Isna Rachmawati, Adeodatus Yuda Handaya
{"title":"住院患者营养评估和筛选工具的比较:一项外科患者的研究。","authors":"Susetyowati Susetyowati,&nbsp;Amalia Sarah Sholikhati,&nbsp;Dinda Krisma Cahyaningrum,&nbsp;Azizah Isna Rachmawati,&nbsp;Adeodatus Yuda Handaya","doi":"10.4274/MMJ.galenos.2023.64554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the Simple Nutrition Screening Tool (SNST) with other nutritional screening tools [Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Nutrition Risk index (NRI)], nutritional assessment parameters, and the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in surgical patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comparative observational study with a total of 122 surgical patients. Patients were assessed during the first 24 h of admission in the ward from January to July 2022 using the NRI, NRS-2002, SNST, body mass index (BMI), mid-upper arm circumferences (MUAC), albumin serum, hemoglobin level, total lymphocyte count (TLC), and SGA. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated to evaluate NRI, NRS-2002, SNST, BMI, MUAC, albumin, hemoglobin, TLC compared to SGA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The screening tools identified a high nutritional risk in surgical patients from 58.2%-72.1%. Meanwhile, about 29.5% to 71.3% was affected by malnutrition based on nutritional assessment tools. There were significant associations between the type of disease, the screening tools, the anthropometric parameters, albumin, TLC as well and SGA (p<0.05). The SNST has a good category among the nutritional screening tools with sensitivity and specificity >80%, as well as area under the curve >0.8.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were significant associations for screening (NRS-2002, SNST) and nutritional assessment tools (BMI, MUAC, albumin) compared with SGA. Both these tools can be used to determine the risk of malnutrition in surgical patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":37427,"journal":{"name":"Medeniyet medical journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/57/2b/medj-38-70.PMC10064107.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Tools for Nutritional Assessment and Screening of Hospitalized Patients: A study on Surgical Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Susetyowati Susetyowati,&nbsp;Amalia Sarah Sholikhati,&nbsp;Dinda Krisma Cahyaningrum,&nbsp;Azizah Isna Rachmawati,&nbsp;Adeodatus Yuda Handaya\",\"doi\":\"10.4274/MMJ.galenos.2023.64554\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the Simple Nutrition Screening Tool (SNST) with other nutritional screening tools [Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Nutrition Risk index (NRI)], nutritional assessment parameters, and the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in surgical patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comparative observational study with a total of 122 surgical patients. Patients were assessed during the first 24 h of admission in the ward from January to July 2022 using the NRI, NRS-2002, SNST, body mass index (BMI), mid-upper arm circumferences (MUAC), albumin serum, hemoglobin level, total lymphocyte count (TLC), and SGA. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated to evaluate NRI, NRS-2002, SNST, BMI, MUAC, albumin, hemoglobin, TLC compared to SGA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The screening tools identified a high nutritional risk in surgical patients from 58.2%-72.1%. Meanwhile, about 29.5% to 71.3% was affected by malnutrition based on nutritional assessment tools. There were significant associations between the type of disease, the screening tools, the anthropometric parameters, albumin, TLC as well and SGA (p<0.05). The SNST has a good category among the nutritional screening tools with sensitivity and specificity >80%, as well as area under the curve >0.8.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were significant associations for screening (NRS-2002, SNST) and nutritional assessment tools (BMI, MUAC, albumin) compared with SGA. Both these tools can be used to determine the risk of malnutrition in surgical patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medeniyet medical journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/57/2b/medj-38-70.PMC10064107.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medeniyet medical journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4274/MMJ.galenos.2023.64554\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medeniyet medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/MMJ.galenos.2023.64554","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较简易营养筛查工具(SNST)与其他营养筛查工具[营养风险筛查2002 (NRS-2002)、营养风险指数(NRI)]、营养评估参数和主观整体评估(SGA)]在外科手术患者中的应用。方法:对122例外科患者进行比较观察研究。患者于2022年1月至7月入院前24小时采用NRI、NRS-2002、SNST、体重指数(BMI)、中上臂围(MUAC)、白蛋白血清、血红蛋白水平、总淋巴细胞计数(TLC)和SGA进行评估。计算NRI、NRS-2002、SNST、BMI、MUAC、白蛋白、血红蛋白、TLC与SGA比较的敏感性、特异性和预测值。结果:筛查工具在手术患者中识别出58.2%-72.1%的高营养风险。同时,根据营养评估工具,约29.5%至71.3%的儿童受到营养不良的影响。疾病类型、筛查工具、人体测量参数、白蛋白、TLC和SGA之间存在显著相关性(p < 80%),曲线下面积>0.8。结论:与SGA相比,筛查(NRS-2002, SNST)和营养评估工具(BMI, MUAC,白蛋白)存在显著相关性。这两种工具都可用于确定手术患者营养不良的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of Tools for Nutritional Assessment and Screening of Hospitalized Patients: A study on Surgical Patients.

Comparison of Tools for Nutritional Assessment and Screening of Hospitalized Patients: A study on Surgical Patients.

Comparison of Tools for Nutritional Assessment and Screening of Hospitalized Patients: A study on Surgical Patients.

Comparison of Tools for Nutritional Assessment and Screening of Hospitalized Patients: A study on Surgical Patients.

Objective: To compare the Simple Nutrition Screening Tool (SNST) with other nutritional screening tools [Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Nutrition Risk index (NRI)], nutritional assessment parameters, and the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in surgical patients.

Methods: A comparative observational study with a total of 122 surgical patients. Patients were assessed during the first 24 h of admission in the ward from January to July 2022 using the NRI, NRS-2002, SNST, body mass index (BMI), mid-upper arm circumferences (MUAC), albumin serum, hemoglobin level, total lymphocyte count (TLC), and SGA. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated to evaluate NRI, NRS-2002, SNST, BMI, MUAC, albumin, hemoglobin, TLC compared to SGA.

Results: The screening tools identified a high nutritional risk in surgical patients from 58.2%-72.1%. Meanwhile, about 29.5% to 71.3% was affected by malnutrition based on nutritional assessment tools. There were significant associations between the type of disease, the screening tools, the anthropometric parameters, albumin, TLC as well and SGA (p<0.05). The SNST has a good category among the nutritional screening tools with sensitivity and specificity >80%, as well as area under the curve >0.8.

Conclusions: There were significant associations for screening (NRS-2002, SNST) and nutritional assessment tools (BMI, MUAC, albumin) compared with SGA. Both these tools can be used to determine the risk of malnutrition in surgical patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medeniyet medical journal
Medeniyet medical journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medeniyet Medical Journal (Medeniyet Med J) is an open access, peer-reviewed, and scientific journal of Istanbul Medeniyet University Faculty of Medicine on various academic disciplines in medicine, which is published in English four times a year, in March, June, September, and December by a group of academics. Medeniyet Medical Journal is the continuation of Göztepe Medical Journal (ISSN: 1300-526X) which was started publishing in 1985. It changed the name as Medeniyet Medical Journal in 2015. Submission and publication are free of charge. No fees are asked from the authors for evaluation or publication process. All published articles are available online in the journal website (www.medeniyetmedicaljournal.org) without any fee. The journal publishes intradisciplinary or interdisciplinary clinical, experimental, and basic researches as well as original case reports, reviews, invited reviews, or letters to the editor, Being published since 1985, the Medeniyet Med J recognizes that the best science should lead to better lives based on the fact that the medicine should serve to the needs of society, and knowledge should transform society. The journal aims to address current issues at both national and international levels, start debates, and exert an influence on decision-makers all over the world by integrating science in everyday life. Medeniyet Med J is committed to serve the public and influence people’s lives in a positive way by making science widely accessible. Believing that the only goal is improving lives, and research has an impact on people’s lives, we select the best research papers in line with this goal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信