Resumen

VALERO, M.ª A. et al. Are the tools recommended by ASPEN and ESPEN comparable for assessing the nutritional status?. Nutr. Hosp. [online]. 2005, vol.20, n.4, pp.259-267. ISSN 1699-5198.

Introducion: There is no "gold standar" for identification of malnutrition. The ASPEN board of directors (2002) suggest the subjective global assessment (SGA) and ESPEN (2002) recommend the nutritional risk screening-2002 (NRS-2002) to detect the prevalence of malnutrition. Aims: This cross-sectional study aims 1) to assess the prevalence of malnutrition on admission and 2) to know association between two tools used to evaluate nutritional risk. Material and methods: 135 patients (42.2% women and 58.8% men, 62.1 ± 14.4 years) are studied at admission. Different parameters are assessed to evaluate nutritional state. Patient's energy requirements (Harris Benedict x Long's factor) and energy intake, calculated as 24 h-recall, are compared. The prevalence of malnutrition is assessed with two screening tools: SGA and NRS-2002. Results: 42.2% of the patients had lost more than 5% body weight and 39.3% had an intake lower than required at admission. The prevalence of malnutrition is 40.7 and 45.1/100 patients admitted at hospital, if SGA or NRS-2002 are used, respectivility. There is strong agreement between results of two nutritional assessment methods (p = 0.000). Serum albumin and protein concentrations and linfocytes count are less in the malnourished patients. Conclusions: The prevalence of malnutrition is elevated. In clinical practice, both methods could be used to identify patients at nutritional risk, but the NRS-2002 is a less subjective method.

Palabras clave : Nutritional screening; Malnutrition; Subjective global assessment; Nutritional risk screening (NRS-2002).

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )