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
. 2020 Jun;35(3):567-571.
doi: 10.1002/ncp.10419. Epub 2019 Oct 10.

Nutrition Risk Screening in Intensive Care Units: Agreement Between NUTRIC and NRS 2002 Tools

Mariane Kubiszewski Coruja  1 , Yasmini Cobalchini  1 , Cristiane Wentzel  2 , Jaqueline da Silva Fink  3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Nutrition Risk Screening in Intensive Care Units: Agreement Between NUTRIC and NRS 2002 Tools

Mariane Kubiszewski Coruja et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2020 Jun.

Abstract

Background: The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition recommends nutrition screening in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and indicates the use of 2 tools: Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) or Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (NUTRIC). This study aims to compare nutrition risk detected by NRS 2002 and NUTRIC to identify whether both tools are equivalent for clinical practice in the ICU.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 2 hospital centers in the south of Brazil. Adult patients (≥18 years old) who stayed in the ICU for >24 hours were included. NUTRIC and NRS 2002 were compared with each other for their agreement in screening for nutrition risk.

Results: The study included 208 patients, most of them male (63.5%). The comparison between both nutrition screening tools showed fair agreement (κ = 0.39). Nearly half of the patients were classified at high nutrition risk by NUTRIC (47.6%), whereas only approximately one-third of the sample was classified similarly by NRS 2002 (35.6%).

Conclusion: Despite the ability to identify patients with high nutrition risk, NUTRIC and NRS 2002 performed differently and were not concordant, suggesting that are not equivalent for clinical practice in the ICU.

Keywords: critical care; intensive care unit; nutrition assessment; nutrition screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(2):159-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607115621863
    1. Yeh DD, Fuentes E, Quraishi SA, et al. Adequate nutrition may get you home: effect of caloric/protein deficits on the discharge destination of critically ill surgical patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(1):37-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607115585142
    1. Kvåle R, Ulvik A, Flaatten H. Follow-up after intensive care: a single center study. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(12):2149-2156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-2034-2
    1. Mogensen KM, Robinson MK, Casey JD, et al. Nutritional status and mortality in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(12):2605-2615. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000001306
    1. Coltman A, Peterson S, Roehl K, Roosevelt H, Sowa D. Use of 3 tools to assess nutrition risk in the intensive care unit. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2015;39(1):28-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607114532135

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources