These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The two most popular malnutrition screening tools in the light of the new ESPEN consensus definition of the diagnostic criteria for malnutrition.
    Author: Poulia KA, Klek S, Doundoulakis I, Bouras E, Karayiannis D, Baschali A, Passakiotou M, Chourdakis M.
    Journal: Clin Nutr; 2017 Aug; 36(4):1130-1135. PubMed ID: 27546796.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The new definition of malnutrition in adults proposed recently by The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) changed the view on the issue and raised the question of the reliability of available diagnostic tools. Therefore, the aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of the two most commonly used screening tools by comparing their findings with the new ESPEN criteria. METHODS: Nutritional screening was performed in 1146 (median age 60 years, interquartile range: 44-73 years, 617 males, 529 females) patients on admission to hospitals with two nutritional screening tools: Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). The screening results were then compared to the ESPEN new diagnostic criteria for malnutrition. RESULTS: According to the NRS2002 13.5% and 27.9% of the outpatients and hospitalized patients respectively were found to be at moderate/high risk of malnutrition. With the use of MUST 9.1% and 14.9% of the outpatients and hospitalized patients respectively were found to be at moderate/high risk of malnutrition. According to the ESPEN diagnostic criteria 6.4% and 11.3% of outpatients and hospitalized patients respectively were classified as malnourished. MUST was found to be better correlated to the latter for both outpatients (K = 0.777, p < 0.001) and hospitalized patients (K = 0.843, p < 0.001) as compared to NRS2002 (k = 0.256, p < 0.001 and k = 0.228, p < 0.001). ROC plots Area Under the Curve (AUC) was found to be higher for MUST compared to NRS2002 (0.964 vs. 0.695 for outpatients and 0.980 vs 0.686 for hospitalized patients respectively). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze the clinical value of a malnutrition screening tool in the light of the new ESPEN definition for malnutrition. According to our results, MUST was better correlated with ESPEN criteria for the definition of malnutrition, leading us to the conclusion that it can more efficiently identify the malnourished patients, during the screening process.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]