We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Evaluation of the nutritional status of older hospitalised geriatric patients: a comparative analysis of a Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) version and the Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS 2002).
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics : the Official Journal of the British Dietetic Association 2016 December
BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to evaluate a short-form (MNA-SF) version of the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), in which some of the items were operationalised, based on scores from tools used for a comprehensive geriatric assessment, as a method for analysing the nutritional status of hospitalised geriatric patients. We compared this MNA-SF version with the corresponding MNA long-form (MNA-LF) and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) in terms of completion rate, prevalence and agreement regarding malnutrition and/or the risk of this.
METHODS: In total, 201 patients aged ≥65 years who were hospitalised in geriatric wards were included in this analysis.
RESULTS: The MNA-SF, MNA-LF and NRS 2002 were completed in 98.0%, 95.5% and 99.5% of patients (P = 0.06), respectively. The MNA-SF, MNA-LF and NRS 2002 categorised 93.4%, 91.1% and 66.0% of patients as being malnourished or at risk of being malnourished (P < 0.001). Agreement between the MNA-SF and MNA-LF was substantial (κ = 0.70, P < 0.001). No agreement between the MNA-SF and NRS 2002 was found (κ = -0.12, P < 0.001). Interestingly, NRS 2002 part 1 (prescreening) revealed a false negative rate of 21.0% (only in patients aged ≥70 years who showed moderate disease severity) in relation to the NRS 2002 part 2.
CONCLUSIONS: The MNA-SF version emerged as a useful tool for evaluating the nutritional status of hospitalised geriatric patients. The NRS 2002 part 1 showed limited value as a prescreening aid in relation to the NRS 2002 part 2 in the same group of patients.
METHODS: In total, 201 patients aged ≥65 years who were hospitalised in geriatric wards were included in this analysis.
RESULTS: The MNA-SF, MNA-LF and NRS 2002 were completed in 98.0%, 95.5% and 99.5% of patients (P = 0.06), respectively. The MNA-SF, MNA-LF and NRS 2002 categorised 93.4%, 91.1% and 66.0% of patients as being malnourished or at risk of being malnourished (P < 0.001). Agreement between the MNA-SF and MNA-LF was substantial (κ = 0.70, P < 0.001). No agreement between the MNA-SF and NRS 2002 was found (κ = -0.12, P < 0.001). Interestingly, NRS 2002 part 1 (prescreening) revealed a false negative rate of 21.0% (only in patients aged ≥70 years who showed moderate disease severity) in relation to the NRS 2002 part 2.
CONCLUSIONS: The MNA-SF version emerged as a useful tool for evaluating the nutritional status of hospitalised geriatric patients. The NRS 2002 part 1 showed limited value as a prescreening aid in relation to the NRS 2002 part 2 in the same group of patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app