Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Jul-Aug;26(7-8):721-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2009.07.010. Epub 2009 Dec 5.

Comparison of nutritional risk screening tools for predicting clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients

Affiliations
Free article
Comparative Study

Comparison of nutritional risk screening tools for predicting clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients

Mariana Raslan et al. Nutrition. 2010 Jul-Aug.
Free article

Abstract

Objective: International nutritional screening tools are recommended for screening hospitalized patients for nutritional risk, but no tool has been specifically evaluated in the Brazilian population. The aim of this study was to identify the most appropriate nutritional screening tool for predicting unfavorable clinical outcomes in patients admitted to a Brazilian public university hospital.

Methods: The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Mini-Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF), and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) were administered to 705 patients within 48 h of hospital admission. Tool performance in predicting complications, very long length of hospital stay (LOS), and death was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results: NRS 2002, MUST, and MNA-SF identified nutritional risk in 27.9%, 39.6%, and 73.2% of the patients, respectively. NRS 2002 (complications: 0.6531; very long LOS: 0.6508; death: 0.7948) and MNA-SF (complications: 0.6495; very long LOS: 0.6197; death: 0.7583) had largest areas under the ROC curve compared to MUST (complications: 0.6036; very long LOS: 0.6109; death: 0.6363). For elderly patients, NRS 2002 was not significantly different than MNA-SF (P>0.05) for predicting outcomes.

Conclusion: Considering current criteria for nutritional risk, NRS 2002 and MNA-SF have similar performance to predict outcomes but NRS 2002 seems to provide a best yield.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources