Search

Background: The new definition of malnutrition in adults proposed recently by The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) changed the view on the issue and raised the question of the reliability of available diagnostic tools. Therefore, the aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of the two most commonly used screening tools by comparing their findings with the new ESPEN criteria., Methods: Nutritional screening was performed in 1146 (median age 60 years, interquartile range: 44-73 years, 617 males, 529 females) patients on admission to hospitals with two nutritional screening tools: Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). The screening results were then compared to the ESPEN new diagnostic criteria for malnutrition., Results: According to the NRS2002 13.5% and 27.9% of the outpatients and hospitalized patients respectively were found to be at moderate/high risk of malnutrition. With the use of MUST 9.1% and 14.9% of the outpatients and hospitalized patients respectively were found to be at moderate/high risk of malnutrition. According to the ESPEN diagnostic criteria 6.4% and 11.3% of outpatients and hospitalized patients respectively were classified as malnourished. MUST was found to be better correlated to the latter for both outpatients (K = 0.777, p < 0.001) and hospitalized patients (K = 0.843, p < 0.001) as compared to NRS2002 (k = 0.256, p < 0.001 and k = 0.228, p < 0.001). ROC plots Area Under the Curve (AUC) was found to be higher for MUST compared to NRS2002 (0.964 vs. 0.695 for outpatients and 0.980 vs 0.686 for hospitalized patients respectively)., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze the clinical value of a malnutrition screening tool in the light of the new ESPEN definition for malnutrition. According to our results, MUST was better correlated with ESPEN criteria for the definition of malnutrition, leading us to the conclusion that it can more efficiently identify the malnourished patients, during the screening process., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Background: Disease-related malnutrition (DRM) represents a critical public health concern. Therefore, Fight Against Malnutrition (FAM) should be a state priority, but the degree to which this is true appears to differ considerably among European countries. The aim of this study was to put the problem into perspective by comparing the prevalence of malnutrition in countries from opposite parts of the continent., Methods: Six countries-Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Turkey-participated in the study. A short questionnaire was used to assess DRM: its prevalence, the current situation in hospitals, regulations for reimbursement, and general healthcare circumstances. Data from ESPEN's NutritionDay 2006 were used to broaden the perspective., Results: At admission in October 2012, 4068 patients were assessed. The study was performed in 160 hospitals and 225 units with 9143 beds. The highest proportions of patients with 3 or more points on the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 were observed in Estonia (80.4%) and Turkey (39.4%), whereas the lowest were in Lithuania (14.2%). The provision of nutrition support was best in Turkey (39.4% required intervention, 34.4% received intervention) and Poland (21.9% and 27.8%, respectively). Nutrition support teams (NSTs) are active in some countries, whereas in others they virtually do not exist., Conclusion: The prevalence of malnutrition was quite high in some countries, and the nutrition approach differed among them. It could be the result of the lack of reimbursement, inactive or nonexistent NSTs, and low nutrition awareness. Those facts confirmed that the continuation of FAM activities is necessary., (© 2013 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.)