↓ Skip to main content

Malnutrition upon Hospital Admission in Geriatric Patients: Why Assess It?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Nutrition, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Malnutrition upon Hospital Admission in Geriatric Patients: Why Assess It?
Published in
Frontiers in Nutrition, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnut.2017.00050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Orlandoni, Claudia Venturini, Nikolina Jukic Peladic, Annarita Costantini, Mirko Di Rosa, Claudia Cola, Natascia Giorgini, Redenta Basile, Donata Fagnani, Debora Sparvoli, Serenella David

Abstract

To assess the prevalence of malnutrition according to the new ESPEN definition in a population of geriatric hospital patients and to determine how malnutrition affects the length of hospital stay (LOS) and hospital mortality. A retrospective analysis of data gathered during nutritional screening surveys carried out three consecutive years, from 2012 to 2014, in an Italian geriatric research hospital (INRCA, Ancona) was performed. On the day of the study, demographic data, data on clinical conditions and the nutritional status of newly admitted patients were collected. Patients were screened for malnutrition risk using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). Subsequently, malnutrition was diagnosed, for subjects at high risk, following the criteria suggested by the European Association for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism [body mass index (BMI) < 18.5 kg/m(2) or different combinations of unintentional weight loss over time and BMI values]. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of MUST compared to ESPEN criteria were assessed. The characteristics of patients with a diagnosis of malnutrition were compared to those of non-malnourished patients. The impact of malnutrition on LOS and hospital mortality was investigated through logistic and linear regression models. The study was performed in an Italian geriatric research hospital (INRCA, Ancona). Two hundred eighty-four newly hospitalized geriatric patients from acute care wards (mean age 82.8 ± 8.7 years), who gave their written consent to participate in the study, were enrolled. According to the MUST, high risk of malnutrition at hospitalization was found in 28.2% of patients. Malnutrition was diagnosed in 24.6% of subjects. The malnutrition was an independent predictor of both the LOS and hospital mortality. The multivariate analyses-linear and logistic regression-were performed considering different potential confounders contemporarily. The results showed that the malnutrition is an independent predictor of LOS and hospital mortality. Malnourished subjects were hospitalized almost 3 days longer compared to non-malnourished patients (p = 0.047; CI 0.04-5.80). The risk of death during hospitalization was 55% higher for malnourished patients (p = 0.037; CI 0.21-0.95). A new ESPEN consensus of malnutrition was easily applicable in a population of geriatric hospital patients. Given that the nutritional status of geriatric patients was strongly correlated with the LOS and hospital mortality, the use of this simple and non-time consuming tool is highly recommended in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 22%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 28 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 33 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,572,275
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#1,831
of 4,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,067
of 328,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 328,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.