Comparison of nutritional risk screening with NRS2002 and the GLIM diagnostic criteria for malnutrition in hospitalized patients

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 12; no. 1; p. 19743
• Main Authors: Trollebø, Marte A., Skeie, Eli, Revheim, Ingrid, Stangeland, Helene, Erstein, Mari-Anne H., Grønning, Martin K., Tangvik, Randi J., Morken, Mette H., Nygård, Ottar, Eagan, Tomas M. L., Rosendahl-Riise, Hanne, Dierkes, Jutta
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 17.11.2022; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 692/700/139; 692/700/2814; Aged; C-reactive protein; Diagnosis; Diet; Dietary intake; Female; Hospitalization; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Inflammation; Leadership; Male; Malnutrition; Malnutrition - diagnosis; Mass Screening - methods; multidisciplinary; Nutrition Assessment; Patients; Science; Science (multidisciplinary)
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-23878-3

Nutritional risk screening, to identify patients at risk of malnutrition, is the first step in the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in hospitalized patients, and should be followed by a thorough nutritional assessment resulting in a diagnosis of malnutrition and subsequent treatment. In 2019, a consensus on criteria has been suggested for the diagnosis of malnutrition by the Global Leadership Initiative for Malnutrition (GLIM). This study investigates the diagnosis of malnutrition in hospitalized patients using nutritional risk screening and the diagnostic assessment suggested by GLIM. Hospitalized patients (excluding cancer, intensive care, and transmissible infections) who underwent nutritional risk screening (by NRS2002) were included. Nutritional risk screening was followed by anthropometric measurements including measurement of muscle mass, assessment of dietary intake and measurement of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) for inflammation in all patients. Malnutrition was diagnosed according to the GLIM-criteria. In total, 328 patients (median age 71 years, 47% women, median length of stay 7 days) were included. Nutritional risk screening identified 143 patients as at risk of malnutrition, while GLIM criteria led to a diagnosis of malnutrition in 114 patients. Of these 114 patients, 77 were also identified as at risk of malnutrition by NRS2002, while 37 patients were not identified by NRS2002. Malnutrition was evident in fewer patients than at risk of malnutrition, as expected. However, a number of patients were malnourished who were not identified by the screening procedure. More studies should investigate the importance of inflammation and reduced muscle mass, which is the main difference between nutritional risk screening and GLIM diagnostic assessment.