[Are the tools recommended by ASPEN and ESPEN comparable for assessing the nutritional status?]

Nutr Hosp. 2005 Jul-Aug;20(4):259-67.
[Article in Spanish]

Abstract

Introduction: [corrected] There is no "gold standard" for identification of malnutrition. The ASPEN board of directors (2002) suggest the subjective global assessment (SGA) and ESPEN (2002) recommend the nutritional risk screening-2002 (NRS-2002) to detect the prevalence of malnutrition.

Aims: This cross-sectional study aims (1) to assess the prevalence of malnutrition on admission and (2) to know association between two tools used to evaluate nutritional risk.

Material and methods: 135 patients (42.2% women and 58.8% men, 62.1 +/- 14.4 years) are studied at admission. Different parameters are assessed to evaluate nutritional state. Patient's energy requirements (Harris Benedict x Long's factor) and energy intake, calculated as 24 h-recall, are compared. The prevalence of malnutrition is assessed with two screening tools: SGA and NRS-2002.

Results: 42.2% of the patients had lost more than 5% body weight and 39.3% had an intake lower than required at admission. The prevalence of malnutrition is 40.7 and 45.1/100 patients admitted at hospital, if SGA or NRS-2002 are used, respectivility. There is strong agreement between results of two nutritional assessment methods (p = 0.000). Serum albumin and protein concentrations and linfocytes count are less in the malnourished patients.

Conclusions: The prevalence of malnutrition is elevated. In clinical practice, both methods could be used to identify patients at nutritional risk, but the NRS-2002 is a less subjective method.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • English Abstract

MeSH terms

  • Anthropometry
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Nutrition Assessment*
  • Nutrition Disorders / diagnosis*
  • Nutritional Status