| Title |
Agreement between different versions of MNA
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The journal of nutrition, health & aging, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12603-013-0005-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lorenzo M. Donini, E. Poggiogalle, A. Morrone, P. Scardella, L. Piombo, B. Neri, E. Cava, D. Cucinotta, M. Barbagallo, A. Pinto |
| Abstract |
Malnutrition occurs frequently in the elderly with important clinical and functional consequences. Moreover, the treatment of malnutrition in the elderly may be effective if clinical and nutritional interventions are performed in the early stages. Therefore the early identification of the risk of malnutrition using validated and handy tools plays a pivotal role in terms of clinical outcome. Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) was validated for this purpose since many years but it is still ongoing the debate over whether the use of different items in certain clinical conditions can be effective without affecting the validity of the nutritional status evaluation. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between different versions of MNA in the evaluation of nutritional risk in elderly subjects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2013.
All research outputs
#23,084,818
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#1,871
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,975
of 213,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#25
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 213,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.