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.
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.