Variation in the prevalence of nutritional risk in hospitalized individuals according to five nutritional screening protocols
AbstractAIMS: To assess the prevalence of nutritional risk in hospitalized subjects and the agreement in nutritional diagnosis between five nutritional screening protocols. METHODS: A cross-sectional study included patients of both genders, aged 18, admitted to hospital from January to March 2013 Within the first 48 hours of admission, the following nutritional screening protocols were applied: Mini Nutrition Assessment (MNA); Mini Nutrition Assessment Short Form (MNA-S); Subjective Global Assessment (ASG); Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS 2002); and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). The protocols consist of questions related to weight loss, body mass index, functional capacity, food appetite and gastrointestinal disturbances. Subjects were classified into two levels: well-nourished and malnourished. RESULTS: A sample of 100 patients were evaluated, which showed 49 (49%) individuals at nutritional risk by the MNA protocol; 53 (53%) by MNA-SF; 23 (23%) by MUST; 7 (7%) by NRS; and 4 (4%) by ASG. The female and aged over 60 years prevailed in the sample. Three protocols, MNA-SF, MUST and NRS, showed a higher nutritional risk in patients over 60 years (p equal or less than 0.05). It was observed that MNA and MNA-SF protocols obtained better agreement (Kappa coefficient = 0.760, p less than 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was good agreement between the protocols MNA and MNA-SF, but not of those with other protocols, which also showed no correlation with each other. The protocol that ranked the highest percentage of patients at nutritional risk was the MNA-SF, and less nutritional risk was detected by ASG.
The submission of originals to Scientia Medica implies the transfer by the authors of the right for publication. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication. If the authors wish to include the same data into another publication, they must cite Scientia Medica as the site of original publication.
Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise specified, material published in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which allows unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is correctly cited.