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: Comparison of two nutritional screening tools to detect nutritional risk in hematologic inpatients.
    Author: Fiol-Martínez L, Calleja-Fernández A, Pintor de la Maza B, Vidal-Casariego A, Villar-Taibo R, Urioste-Fondo A, Cuervo M, Cano-Rodríguez I, Ballesteros-Pomar MD.
    Journal: Nutrition; 2017 Feb; 34():97-100. PubMed ID: 28063519.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare two nutritional screening tools in oncohematologic inpatients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed in a hematology ward from August to December 2015. Within the first 24 h of admission, the following nutritional screenings were performed: Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Patients who stayed in the hematologic ward were reevaluated with the three screening tools 1 and 2 wk after admission. The SGA was used as the gold standard in the detection of malnutrition. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were included in the study. Of these, 61.9% were men, ages 64 y (SD = 17.9 y) with 90.5% having a diagnosis of cancer. The prevalence of patients with nutritional risk at admission was 17.5% with SGA, 16.7% at week 1, and 31.6% at week 2. According to MST, the prevalence was 41.3% at admission, 13.9% at week 1, and 15.8% at week 2. According to MUST, the prevalence was 36.5%, 25%, and 36.8%, respectively. The results of diagnostic tests on admission were an area under the curve receiver operating characteristic of 0.691 for MST and 0.830 for MUST at admission; at week 1, 0.717 for MST and 0.850 for MUST; and at week 2 of assessment, 0.506 for MST and 0.840 for MUST. CONCLUSION: MUST might be a better screening tool than MST for detecting the risk for malnutrition in oncohematological inpatients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]