↓ Skip to main content

Validation of nutritional screening Malnutrition Screening Tool compared to other screening tools and the nutritional assessment in different social and health areas.

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrición Hospitalaria, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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 nutritional screening Malnutrition Screening Tool compared to other screening tools and the nutritional assessment in different social and health areas.
Published in
Nutrición Hospitalaria, February 2018
DOI 10.20960/nh.1619
Pubmed ID
Authors

Icíar Castro-Vega, Silvia Veses Martín, Juana Cantero Llorca, Christian Salom Vendrell, Celia Bañuls, Antonio Hernández Mijares

Abstract

nutritional screenings are used to detect nutritional risk, allow early intervention and influence the prognosis. The Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) is only validated in hospitalized patients and oncology outpatients. to analyze the nutritional screening MST, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-sf) compared to the nutritional assessment gold standard according to socio-sanitary areas and age groups; and to assess the utility of the MST in those areas where it has not been validated. a total of 815 outpatient, hospitalized and institutionalized subjects were included in this study. MUST and MST screenings, and nutritional assessment were performed in all subjects. MNA-sf was also performed in subjects ≥ 65 years of age. Nutritional diagnosis was performed according to the SENPE-SEDOM consensus. in the outpatient cohort, three screenings have a validity (AUC ROC) greater than 0.8 compared to nutritional assessment. In the institutionalized, the MNA-sf generates false positives and the MUST is more valid than MST (AUC ROC = 0.815 and 0.763, respectively). In hospitalized patients, there are excellent results with MUST and MST. In all socio-sanitary areas the MST obtains a better positive predictive value. By age groups, MUST and MST are valid tools. in our study, the MST correctly diagnoses more than 80% of the patients (S = 69.4%, E = 94.2%), and has a good reliability and validity with respect to nutritional assessment not only in hospitalized patients and oncology outpatients, where it has already been validated. In our population, the MST was found to be valid in outpatient, institutionalized and hospitalized subjects.

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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 15%
Student > Master 14 11%
Other 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 51 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 54 42%