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: Evaluation of an electronic medical record-based Paediatric Nutrition Screening Tool.
    Author: Hilbrands J, Feuling MB, Szabo A, Teng BQ, Burgess C, Clark B, Crouse J, Fortin H, Heisler B, Karls C, Lampone O, Matschull L, Seyfert M, Smith A, Goday PS.
    Journal: J Hum Nutr Diet; 2023 Oct; 36(5):1912-1921. PubMed ID: 37138388.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Nutrition screening is recommended to identify children at risk for malnutrition. A unique screening tool was developed based on American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) recommendations and embedded in the electronic medical record to assess for nutrition risk. METHODS: The components of the tool included the Paediatric Nutrition Screening Tool (PNST) and other elements recommended by ASPEN. To evaluate the screening tool, retrospective data were analysed on all patients admitted to acute care units of Children's Wisconsin in 2019. Data collected included nutrition screen results, diagnosis and nutrition status. All patients who received at least one full nutrition assessment by a registered dietitian (RD) were included in analysis. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred seventy-five patients were included in analysis. The following screen elements were significantly associated with a diagnosis of malnutrition: any positive screen (p < 0.001), >2 food allergies (p = 0.009), intubation (p < 0.001), parenteral nutrition (p = 0.005), RD-identified risk (p < 0.001), positive risk per the PNST (p < 0.001), BMI-for-age or weight-for-length z-score (p < 0.001), intake <50% for 3 days (p = 0.012) and NPO > 3 days (p = 0.009). The current screen had a sensitivity of 93.9%, specificity of 20.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 30.9% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 89.8%. This is compared with the PNST which had a sensitivity of 32%, specificity of 94.2%, PPV of 71% and NPV of 75.8% in this study population. CONCLUSION: This unique screening tool is useful for predicting nutrition risk and has a greater sensitivity than the PNST alone.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]