Bauer J M, Vogl T, Wicklein S, Trögner J, Mühlberg W, Sieber C C
Medizinische Klinik 2-Klinikum Nürnberg, Lehrstuhl für Innere Medizin V der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Prof.-Ernst-Nathan-Str.1, 90419 Nürnberg.
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2005 Oct;38(5):322-7. doi: 10.1007/s00391-005-0331-9.
The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and the Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) are screening and assessment tools aimed at detecting malnourished individuals and those at risk for malnutrition. In our study we tested their applicability in geriatric hospital patients and compared the results of the three tools. We examined prospectively all patients of two acute geriatric wards by the MNA, the SGA and the NRS. 121 patients were included in the study. The MNA could be completed in 66.1% of all patients, the SGA in 99.2% and the NRS in 98.3%. There was a significant association of all three tools with the BMI (p<0.01). With regard to serum albumin and to length of hospital stay (p<0.05), only a significant association could be shown for the MNA (p<0.05). Although the categories of the results were not completely identical for the three tools there were more patients at risk or malnourished according to the MNA (70%) than according to the SGA (45%) or the NRS (40.3%). The direct comparison of the NRS with the MNA and the SGA demonstrated significant differences, especially for the latter (p<0.001). In a relevant percentage of those tested, MNA, SGA, and NRS identify different individuals as malnourished or at risk for malnutrition. Because of its association with relevant prognostic parameters, the MNA is still the first choice for geriatric hospital patients. For those patients to whom the MNA cannot be applied, the NRS is recommended.
微型营养评定法(MNA)、主观全面评定法(SGA)和营养风险筛查(NRS)是旨在检测营养不良个体及有营养不良风险者的筛查和评估工具。在我们的研究中,我们测试了它们在老年住院患者中的适用性,并比较了这三种工具的结果。我们前瞻性地通过MNA、SGA和NRS对两个老年急性病房的所有患者进行了检查。121名患者纳入研究。所有患者中66.1%可完成MNA,99.2%可完成SGA,98.3%可完成NRS。所有三种工具与体重指数均存在显著相关性(p<0.01)。关于血清白蛋白和住院时间(p<0.05),仅MNA显示出显著相关性(p<0.05)。尽管三种工具的结果类别并不完全相同,但根据MNA有营养不良风险或营养不良的患者(70%)多于根据SGA(45%)或NRS(40.3%)的患者。NRS与MNA和SGA的直接比较显示出显著差异,尤其是与后者相比(p<0.001)。在相当比例的受测者中,MNA、SGA和NRS将不同个体识别为营养不良或有营养不良风险。由于MNA与相关预后参数相关,它仍是老年住院患者的首选。对于无法应用MNA的患者,推荐使用NRS。