Incorporating the Malnutrition Screening Tool and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool in Rehabilitation Practice: Comparison With the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002

被引:0
|
作者
Adiguzel, Kuebra Tel [1 ]
Caliskan, Hatice Aybuke [1 ]
Isik, Fatma Berna [1 ]
Erdogan, Hilal Caybasi [1 ]
Aksit, Sena [1 ]
Mansiz, Suna [1 ]
Adiguzel, Emre [2 ]
Yasar, Evren [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hlth Sci Turkey, Gulhane Hlth Sci Fac, Dept Nutr & Dietet, Ankara, Turkiye
[2] Univ Hlth Sci Turkey, Phys Med & Rehabil Hosp, Ankara Bilkent City Hosp, Ankara, Turkiye
[3] Univ Hlth Sci Turkey, Gulhane Sch Med, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, Ankara, Turkiye
[4] Yozgat Bozok Univ, Yozgat, Turkiye
来源
FOOD SCIENCE & NUTRITION | 2025年 / 13卷 / 01期
关键词
malnutrition; malnutrition risk; rehabilitation; STROKE; MORTALITY; COSTS;
D O I
10.1002/fsn3.4676
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
To demonstrate the prevalence of malnutrition risk in a specific rehabilitation setting. The secondary aim of the study was to compare Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) with Nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002). Patients diagnosed with stroke, anoxic brain injury, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, neuromuscular diseases, Parkinson's disease, and lymphedema who were admitted to a rehabilitation hospital were included. NRS-2002, MST, and MUST were used to assess malnutrition risk. Body weight (kg), height (cm), and mid upper arm circumference (cm) were measured. Twenty-four hours dietary records were obtained. Routine blood test results were recorded from patient files. Five hundred sixteen patients with a mean age of 54.3 +/- 18.0 years were included. The most prominent diagnoses were stroke and spinal cord injury. According to NRS-2002, 71.7% (n = 370) of the patients were at low risk, but 28.3% (n = 146) of the patients were at high risk. Comparisons between NRS-2002 and MST showed that these two scales have similar results at classifying patients for malnutrition risk (p = 0.154). Comparison between NRS-2002 and MUST showed significant differences (p < 0.001). Both sensitivity and specificity of MST were above 80.0%. Sensitivity of MUST was 78.1% and specificity was 88.1%. Approximately one-third of the patients were at risk of malnutrition. Specificity and sensitivity of MST and MUST were as high as routinely used scale NRS-2002, and therefore it can be supposed that, considering the diagnostic groups of the patients, MST and MUST are useful in rehabilitation practice.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Complementarity of nutrition screening with Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria for diagnosing malnutrition in critically ill patients: A comparison study of Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill Score
    Foletto, Estefani
    Bernardes, Simone
    Milanez, Danielle Silla Jobim
    Razzera, Elisa Loch
    Silva, Flavia Moraes
    JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION, 2024, 48 (04) : 440 - 448
  • [42] Malnutrition screening in clinical practice
    Hankard, Regis
    Colomb, Virginie
    Piloquet, Hugues
    Bocquet, Alain
    Bresson, Jean-Louis
    Briend, Andre
    Chouraqui, Jean-Pierre
    Darmaun, Dominique
    Dupont, Christophe
    Frelut, Marie-Laure
    Girardet, Jean-Philippe
    Goulet, Olivier
    Rieu, Daniel
    Simeoni, Umberto
    Turck, Dominique
    Vidailhet, Michel
    NUTRITION CLINIQUE ET METABOLISME, 2013, 27 (01): : 20 - 27
  • [43] Malnutrition screening tool and nutritional screening tool for classification of nutritional risk in patients with cancer upon hospital admission: Comparison of diagnostic performance using Global Leadership Initiative on malnutrition criteria as reference
    Merch-Chaverra, Ricardo Alfonso
    Acero-Alfonso, Daniela Alejandra
    Cuellar-Fernandez, Yeny Marjorie
    Medina-Parra, Jorge
    Lloreda, Patricia Savino
    CLINICAL NUTRITION ESPEN, 2024, 61 : 46 - 51
  • [44] The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 tool for detecting malnutrition risk in hospitalised patients: Perspective from a developing country
    Gokcan, Hale
    Selcuk, Haldun
    Tore, Emin
    Gulseren, Pinar
    Cambaz, Hatice
    Saritas, Seniz
    Ocal, Ruhsen
    Basaran, Ozgur
    Yilmaz, Ugur
    Akin, Ebru
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 25 (06) : 718 - 723
  • [45] A First Step Towards Eliminating Malnutrition: A Proposal for Universal Nutrition Screening in Pediatric Practice
    Murray, Robert D.
    Kerr, Kirk W.
    Brunton, Cory
    Williams, Jennifer A.
    DeWitt, Tiffany
    Wulf, Karyn L.
    NUTRITION AND DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS, 2021, 13 : 17 - 24
  • [46] Nutritional risk assessed by the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool as a predictor of frailty in acutely hospitalised older patients: An observational study
    Sharma, Yogesh
    Avina, Peter
    Ross, Emelie
    Horwood, Chris
    Hakendorf, Paul
    Thompson, Campbell
    ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2021, 30 (02) : 185 - 191
  • [47] Use of the malnutrition screening tool by non-dietitians to identify at-risk patients in a rehabilitation setting: A validation study
    Wester, Paulina
    Angus, Rebecca
    Easlea, Dayle
    Lin, Michelle
    Chen, Benjamin
    Bisset, Leanne
    NUTRITION & DIETETICS, 2018, 75 (03) : 324 - 330
  • [48] Nutritional Risk and Malnutrition in Paediatrics: From Anthropometric Assessment to Strongkids® Screening Tool
    Goncalves, Luis Vieira
    Oliveira, Ana Gisela
    Barracosa, Mariana
    Antunes, Joaquina
    Pimenta, Joana
    ACTA MEDICA PORTUGUESA, 2023, 36 (05) : 309 - 316
  • [49] Validity of the Malnutrition Screening Tool for Older Adults at High Risk of Hospital Readmission
    Wu, Min-Lin
    Courtney, Mary D.
    Shortridge-Baggett, Lillie M.
    Finlayson, Kathleen
    Isenring, Elisabeth A.
    JOURNAL OF GERONTOLOGICAL NURSING, 2012, 38 (06): : 38 - 45
  • [50] Validity and Reliability of a Nutrition Screening Tool in Identifying Malnutrition Among Hospitalized Adult Patients
    Tah, Pei Chien
    Kee, Chee Cheong
    Majid, Hazreen Abdul
    NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2020, 35 (05) : 942 - 950