Dataset Information

Validation of Malnutrition Screening Tools in Liver Cirrhosis.

ABSTRACT: Malnutrition in liver cirrhosis is frequently underestimated. To determine if a patient is at risk of malnutrition, several screening tools have been established. However, most of them are not validated for patients with liver cirrhosis. Therefore, we compared the RFH-NPT (Royal Free Hospital Nutritional Prioritizing Tool) as the validated gold standard for malnutrition screening in cirrhosis patients with GMS (Graz Malnutrition Screening), NRS-2002 (Nutritional Risk Screening) and MNA-SF (Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form). Based on common validity criteria for screening tools, only the MNA-SF showed fair correlation (12/15 points) with the RFH-NPT, whereas NRS-2002 and GMS performed worse (6/15 points). Taken together, our results suggest that NRS-2002 and GMS are not suitable for screening of malnutrition in cirrhosis patients. A cirrhosis-specific screening tool like RFH-NPT should be used to assess malnutrition and to identify those at risk of malnutrition.

SUBMITTER: Traub J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7285209 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of Malnutrition Screening Tools in Liver Cirrhosis.

Traub Julia J Bergheim Ina I Horvath Angela A Stadlbauer Vanessa V

Nutrients 20200503 5

Malnutrition in liver cirrhosis is frequently underestimated. To determine if a patient is at risk of malnutrition, several screening tools have been established. However, most of them are not validated for patients with liver cirrhosis. Therefore, we compared the RFH-NPT (Royal Free Hospital Nutritional Prioritizing Tool) as the validated gold standard for malnutrition screening in cirrhosis patients with GMS (Graz Malnutrition Screening), NRS-2002 (Nutritional Risk Screening) and MNA-SF (Mini ...[more]

PMID: 32375271

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to identify all currently available screening and assessment tools for detection of malnutrition in hospitalised children, and to identify the most useful tools on the basis of published validation studies.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, CINAHL and MEDLINE were searched up to October 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies in English that reported sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values (PPVs/NPVs) in the paediatric population were eligible for inclusion.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently screened all of the studies identified, and extracted the data. The methodological qualities of the studies included were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.ResultsThe 26 validation studies that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review used eight screening and three assessment tools. The number of participants varied from 32 to 14 477. There was considerable variability in the chosen reference standards, which prevented direct comparisons of the predictive performances of the tools. Anthropometric measurements were used as reference standards in 16 of the identified studies, and full nutritional assessment in 5. The Pediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS) screening tool performed better than Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition and Screening Tool for Risk On Nutritional status and Growth when compared in terms of anthropometric measurements, especially for body mass index (Se=90.9, Sp=81.9) and triceps skinfold thickness (Se=80.0, Sp=75.0). However, low PPVs indicated the problem of overprediction of positive cases, which was typical for all of the studies that used anthropometric measurements as the reference standard.ConclusionsThis systematic review identifies the need for definition of the gold standard for validation of screening tools. Anthropometry measurements using WHO or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts should be considered as the possible reference standard in future validation studies. We would recommend the use of PYMS for hospitalised paediatric patients without chronic conditions, in combination with full nutritional assessment.Prospero registration numberCRD42017077477.

Project description:BackgroundThis cohort study aimed to compare the performance of the 2015 diagnostic criteria for malnutrition of the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Short-Form of Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF) in detecting malnutrition risk and predicting postoperative complications and the failure of early oral feeding (EOF) programs in esophageal cancer patients.MethodsThe 4 tools were used to conduct malnutrition assessments before surgery. The patients were divided into the groups of severe malnutrition and mild/moderate malnutrition and the incidences of the endpoints were observed. Multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted.ResultsTwo hundred and nineteen consecutive esophageal cancer patients were included in the study. The prevalence rates of severe malnutrition as determined by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, NRS 2002, and MNA-SF were 24.7%, 29.7%, 23.7%, and 16.0%, respectively. The moderate/severe malnutrition risk screened by the MUST had a high sensitivity (100.0%) with malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria. In total, 42 (19.2%) patients experienced major complications, and the incidence rate of EOF failure was 7.3%. The severe malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, and NRS 2002 were comparable in predicting the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage, readmission to intensive care units (ICUs), and EOF failure, but the ESPEN 2015 criteria was better in predicting postoperative overall complications, major complications, and delayed hospital discharge.ConclusionsThe ESPEN 2015 criteria specializes in identifying severe malnutrition and is better in predicting adverse surgical outcomes; however, the MUST and NRS 2002 are better superior in detecting early malnutrition and are also valuable in the perioperative management in esophageal surgery. It is recommended that the MUST be used as the malnutrition screening tool before the ESPEN 2015 criteria is applied.

Dataset Information

Validation of Malnutrition Screening Tools in Liver Cirrhosis.

Publications

Validation of Malnutrition Screening Tools in Liver Cirrhosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets