Tel Adigüzel Kübra, Çalişkan Hatice Aybüke, Işik Fatma Berna, Çaybaşi Erdoğan Hilal, Akşit Sena, Mansiz Suna, Adigüzel Emre, Yaşar Evren
Gülhane Health Sciences Faculty, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics University of Health Sciences Turkey Ankara Turkey.
Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Hospital University of Health Sciences Turkey Ankara Turkey.
Food Sci Nutr. 2025 Jan 9;13(1):e4676. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.4676. eCollection 2025 Jan.
To demonstrate the prevalence of malnutrition risk in a specific rehabilitation setting. The secondary aim of the study was to compare Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) with Nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002). Patients diagnosed with stroke, anoxic brain injury, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, neuromuscular diseases, Parkinson's disease, and lymphedema who were admitted to a rehabilitation hospital were included. NRS-2002, MST, and MUST were used to assess malnutrition risk. Body weight (kg), height (cm), and mid upper arm circumference (cm) were measured. Twenty-four hours dietary records were obtained. Routine blood test results were recorded from patient files. Five hundred sixteen patients with a mean age of 54.3 ± 18.0 years were included. The most prominent diagnoses were stroke and spinal cord injury. According to NRS-2002, 71.7% ( = 370) of the patients were at low risk, but 28.3% ( = 146) of the patients were at high risk. Comparisons between NRS-2002 and MST showed that these two scales have similar results at classifying patients for malnutrition risk ( = 0.154). Comparison between NRS-2002 and MUST showed significant differences ( < 0.001). Both sensitivity and specificity of MST were above 80.0%. Sensitivity of MUST was 78.1% and specificity was 88.1%. Approximately one-third of the patients were at risk of malnutrition. Specificity and sensitivity of MST and MUST were as high as routinely used scale NRS-2002, and therefore it can be supposed that, considering the diagnostic groups of the patients, MST and MUST are useful in rehabilitation practice.
为了证明在特定康复环境中营养不良风险的普遍性。该研究的次要目的是将营养不良筛查工具(MST)和营养不良通用筛查工具(MUST)与营养风险筛查2002(NRS - 2002)进行比较。纳入了入住康复医院的被诊断为中风、缺氧性脑损伤、脊髓损伤、多发性硬化症、关节炎、神经肌肉疾病、帕金森病和淋巴水肿的患者。使用NRS - 2002、MST和MUST评估营养不良风险。测量了体重(kg)、身高(cm)和上臂中部周长(cm)。获取了24小时饮食记录。从患者病历中记录了常规血液检查结果。纳入了516名平均年龄为54.3±18.0岁的患者。最常见的诊断是中风和脊髓损伤。根据NRS - 2002,71.7%(n = 370)的患者为低风险,但28.3%(n = 146)的患者为高风险。NRS - 2002与MST之间的比较表明,这两种量表在对患者进行营养不良风险分类方面结果相似(P = 0.154)。NRS - 2002与MUST之间的比较显示出显著差异(P < 0.001)。MST的敏感性和特异性均高于80.0%。MUST的敏感性为78.1%,特异性为88.1%。大约三分之一的患者存在营养不良风险。MST和MUST的特异性和敏感性与常规使用的量表NRS - 2002一样高,因此可以推测,考虑到患者的诊断类别,MST和MUST在康复实践中是有用的。