@article{article_454035, title={Comparison of revised mini nutritional assessment-short form with the three most popular malnutrition screening tools in hospitalized elderly patients}, journal={Ege Tıp Dergisi}, volume={58}, pages={274–281}, year={2019}, DOI={10.19161/etd.454035}, url={https://izlik.org/JA27SC44ET}, author={Savas, Sumru}, keywords={Malnütrisyon,hastane,yaşlı,nütrisyonel değerlendirme.}, abstract={<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:2pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:11.5pt;"> <b> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, ’sans-serif’;">Aim: </span> </b> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, ’sans-serif’;">There is no gold standard to identify
nutritional risk (NR) at the hospitals for geriatric population. Mini
Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) is widely used at hospitals where
body mass index (BMI) measurements are not applicable for most of patients.
Thus, revised MNA-SF (rMNA-SF) including calf circumference (CC) instead of BMI
may be an alternative. There are a few studies investigating efficacy of
rMNA-SF in this group. The aim of this study was to evaluate nutritional status
(NS) in hospitalized elderly patients with MNA-SF and revised form, NR
Screening–2002 (NRS-2002), and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST),
and to compare the results. </span> </p> <p> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:2pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:11.5pt;"> <b> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, ’sans-serif’;">Materials and Methods: </span> </b> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, ’sans-serif’;">Elderly <b> </b>patients hospitalized in Internal
Medicine Department were enrolled in the study retrospectively assessing NS <s>. </s>with four nutritional screening tools (NST). from hospital records. </span> </p> <p> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:2pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:11.5pt;"> <b> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, ’sans-serif’;">Results: </span> </b> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, ’sans-serif’;">A hundred patients (≥65 years) were
enrolled in the study. Any NR varied greatly, ranging from 18.4% to 86%. When
malnutrition and risk of malnutrition were evaluated together, NSTs showing the
highest frequency of NR to the lowest were rMNA-SF, MNA-SF, NRS-2002, and MUST,
respectively. While there was strong agreement between MNA-SF and rMNA-SF (κ =
0.861, P < 0.001), agreements between MUST and both NRS-2002 (κ = 0.509, P
<0.001) and rMNA-SF (κ = 0.322, P = 0.003) were moderate-poor. </span> </p> <p> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:2pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:12pt;"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:2pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:11.5pt;"> <b> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, ’sans-serif’;">Conclusions: </span> </b> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, ’sans-serif’;"> Nutritional risk was
variable depending on the NST, and rMNA-SF may be a practical alternative for
bedridden elderly patients and/or when BMI measurements are lacking at
hospital. It should be kept in mind that NR might be overestimated. </span> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>}, number={3}