Lorenzo M Donini1, Eleonora Poggiogalle1, Alessio Molfino2, Aldo Rosano3, Andrea Lenzi1, Filippo Rossi Fanelli2, Maurizio Muscaritoli4. 1. Department of Experimental Medicine-Medical Pathophysiology, Food Science, and Endocrinology Section, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. 3. ISFOL (Istituto per lo Sviluppo della Formazione Professionale dei Lavoratori), Department of Employment and Social Policies, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Clinical Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: maurizio.muscaritoli@uniroma1.it.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Malnutrition plays a major role in clinical and functional impairment in older adults. The use of validated, user-friendly and rapid screening tools for malnutrition in the elderly may improve the diagnosis and, possibly, the prognosis. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), considered as a reference tool, MNA short form (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS-2002) in elderly institutionalized participants. METHODS: Participants were enrolled among nursing home residents and underwent a multidimensional evaluation. Predictive value and survival analysis were performed to compare the nutritional classifications obtained from the different tools. RESULTS: A total of 246 participants (164 women, age: 82.3 ± 9 years, and 82 men, age: 76.5 ± 11 years) were enrolled. Based on MNA, 22.6% of females and 17% of males were classified as malnourished; 56.7% of women and 61% of men were at risk of malnutrition. Agreement between MNA and MUST or NRS-2002 was classified as "fair" (k = 0.270 and 0.291, respectively; P < .001), whereas the agreement between MNA and MNA-SF was classified as "moderate" (k = 0.588; P < .001). Because of the high percentage of false negative participants, MUST and NRS-2002 presented a low overall predictive value compared with MNA and MNA-SF. Clinical parameters were significantly different in false negative participants with MUST or NRS-2002 from true negative and true positive individuals using the reference tool. For all screening tools, there was a significant association between malnutrition and mortality. MNA showed the best predictive value for survival among well-nourished participants. CONCLUSIONS: Functional, psychological, and cognitive parameters, not considered in MUST and NRS-2002 tools, are probably more important risk factors for malnutrition than acute illness in geriatric long-term care inpatient settings and may account for the low predictive value of these tests. MNA-SF seems to combine the predictive capacity of the full version of the MNA with a sufficiently short time of administration.
INTRODUCTION:Malnutrition plays a major role in clinical and functional impairment in older adults. The use of validated, user-friendly and rapid screening tools for malnutrition in the elderly may improve the diagnosis and, possibly, the prognosis. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), considered as a reference tool, MNA short form (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS-2002) in elderly institutionalized participants. METHODS:Participants were enrolled among nursing home residents and underwent a multidimensional evaluation. Predictive value and survival analysis were performed to compare the nutritional classifications obtained from the different tools. RESULTS: A total of 246 participants (164 women, age: 82.3 ± 9 years, and 82 men, age: 76.5 ± 11 years) were enrolled. Based on MNA, 22.6% of females and 17% of males were classified as malnourished; 56.7% of women and 61% of men were at risk of malnutrition. Agreement between MNA and MUST or NRS-2002 was classified as "fair" (k = 0.270 and 0.291, respectively; P < .001), whereas the agreement between MNA and MNA-SF was classified as "moderate" (k = 0.588; P < .001). Because of the high percentage of false negative participants, MUST and NRS-2002 presented a low overall predictive value compared with MNA and MNA-SF. Clinical parameters were significantly different in false negative participants with MUST or NRS-2002 from true negative and true positive individuals using the reference tool. For all screening tools, there was a significant association between malnutrition and mortality. MNA showed the best predictive value for survival among well-nourished participants. CONCLUSIONS: Functional, psychological, and cognitive parameters, not considered in MUST and NRS-2002 tools, are probably more important risk factors for malnutrition than acute illness in geriatric long-term care inpatient settings and may account for the low predictive value of these tests. MNA-SF seems to combine the predictive capacity of the full version of the MNA with a sufficiently short time of administration.
Authors: Christoph Ihle; Christoph Weiß; Gunnar Blumenstock; Ulrich Stöckle; Björn Gunnar Ochs; Christian Bahrs; Andreas Nüssler; Anna Janine Schreiner Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 2.362