IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v20y2011i15-16p2144-2152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of five malnutrition screening tools in one hospital inpatient sample

Author

Listed:
  • Floor Neelemaat
  • Judith Meijers
  • Hinke Kruizenga
  • Hanne van Ballegooijen
  • Marian van Bokhorst‐de van der Schueren

Abstract

Aims and objectives. The purpose of this study is to compare five commonly used malnutrition screening tools against an acknowledged definition of malnutrition in one hospital inpatient sample. Background. Early identification and intervention of malnutrition in hospital patients may prevent later complications. Several screening tools have reported their diagnostic accuracy, but the criterion validity of these tools is unknown. Design. A cross sectional study. Methods. We compared quick‐and easy screening tools [Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ) and Mini‐Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA‐SF)] and more comprehensive malnutrition screening tools [Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS‐2002)] to an acknowledged definition of malnutrition (including low Body Mass Index and unintentional weight loss) in one sample of 275 adult hospital inpatients. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were determined. A sensitivity and specificity of ≥70% was set as a prerequisite for adequate performance of a screening tool. Results. According to the acknowledged definition of malnutrition 5% of patients were at moderate risk of malnutrition and 25% were at severe risk. The comprehensive malnutrition screening tools (MUST, NRS‐2002) and the quick‐and‐easy malnutrition screening tools (MST and SNAQ) showed sensitivities and specificities of ≥70%. However, 47% of data were missing on the MUST questionnaire and 41% were missing on MNA‐SF. The MNA‐SF showed excellent sensitivity, but poor specificity for the older subpopulation. Conclusions. The quick‐and‐easy malnutrition screening tools (MST and SNAQ) are suitable for use in an hospital inpatient setting. They performed as well as the comprehensive malnutrition screening tools (MUST and NRS‐2002) on criterion validity. However, MUST was found to be less applicable due to the high rate of missing values. The MNA‐SF appeared to be not useful because of it low specificity. Relevance to clinical practice. Insight in what is the most valid and practical nutritional screening tool to use in hospital practice will increase effective recognition and treatment of malnutrition.

Suggested Citation

  • Floor Neelemaat & Judith Meijers & Hinke Kruizenga & Hanne van Ballegooijen & Marian van Bokhorst‐de van der Schueren, 2011. "Comparison of five malnutrition screening tools in one hospital inpatient sample," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(15‐16), pages 2144-2152, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:15-16:p:2144-2152
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03667.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03667.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03667.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:15-16:p:2144-2152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.