↓ Skip to main content

Validation of a subjective global assessment questionnaire

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pediatria, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of a subjective global assessment questionnaire
Published in
Jornal de Pediatria, July 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.jped.2015.03.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maiara Pires Carniel, Daniele Santetti, Juliana Silveira Andrade, Bianca Penteado Favero, Tábata Moschen, Paola Almeida Campos, Helena Ayako Sueno Goldani, Cristina Toscani Leal Dornelles

Abstract

To validate the Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment (SGNA) questionnaire for Brazilian children and adolescents. A cross-sectional study with 242 patients, aged 30 days to 13 years, treated in pediatric units of a tertiary hospital with acute illness and minimum hospitalization of 24h. After permission from the authors of the original study, the following criteria were observed to obtain the validation of SGNA instruments: translation and backtranslation, concurrent validity, predictive validity, and inter-observer reliability. The variables studied were age, sex, weight and length at birth, prematurity, and anthropometry (weight, height, body mass index, upper arm circumference, triceps skinfold, and subscapular skinfold). The primary outcome was considered as the need for admission/readmission within 30 days after hospital discharge. Statistical tests used included ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, chi-squared, and Kappa coefficient. According to SGNA score, 80% of patients were considered as well nourished, 14.5% moderately malnourished, and 5.4% severely malnourished. Concurrent validity showed a weak correlation between the SGNA and anthropometric measurements (p<0.001). Regarding predictive power, the main outcome associated with SGNA was length of admission/readmission. Secondary outcomes associated included the following: length of stay at the unit after SGNA, weight and length at birth, and prematurity (p<0.05). The interobserver reliability showed good agreement among examiners (Kappa=0.74). This study validated the SGNA in this group of hospitalized pediatric patients, ensuring its use in the clinical setting and for research purposes in the Brazilian population.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 123 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 35 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 41 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pediatria
#644
of 896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,177
of 258,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pediatria
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 258,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.