scholarly journals Mini nutritional assessment and malnutrition universal screening tool in detection of osteoporosis

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
HAM Gabal ◽  
NA Ismail ◽  
SA Dewedar ◽  
HA Abousief ◽  
mz Abd El Wadood
Keyword(s):  
Universal Screening ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Mini Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool

scholarly journals A Comparison of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) Tool for Older Patients Undergoing General Surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (24) ◽  
pp. 5860
Author(s):  
Stamatios Kokkinakis ◽  
Maria Venianaki ◽  
Georgia Petra ◽  
Alexandros Chrysos ◽  
Emmanuel Chrysos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Surgery ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Mini Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Postoperative Outcomes ◽  
Postoperative Length ◽  
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool

The optimal malnutrition screening tool in geriatric surgery has yet to be determined. Herein, we compare two main tools in older patients undergoing general surgery operations. Older patients (>65 years old) who underwent general surgery operations between 2012 and 2017 in a tertiary centre were included. The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF) were used for nutritional risk assessment. Preoperative variables as well as postoperative outcomes were recorded prospectively. Agreement between tools was determined with the weighted kappa (κ) statistic. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the association of the screening tools with postoperative outcomes. A total of 302 patients (median age 74 years, range: 65–92) were included. A similar number of patients were classified as medium/high risk for malnutrition with the MNA-SF and MUST (26% vs. 36%, p = 0.126). Agreement between the two tools was moderate (weighted κ: 0.474; 95%CI: 0.381–0.568). In the multivariate analysis, MNA-SF was associated significantly with postoperative mortality (p = 0.038) and with postoperative length of stay (p = 0.001). MUST was associated with postoperative length of stay (p = 0.048). The MNA-SF seems to be more consistently associated with postoperative outcomes in elderly patients undergoing general surgery compared with the MUST tool.

scholarly journals Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults

2004 ◽  
Vol 92 (5) ◽  
pp. 799-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Stratton ◽  
Annemarie Hackston ◽  
David Longmore ◽  
Rod Dixon ◽  
Sarah Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Excellent Agreement ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Mini Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Medical Inpatients ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool

The ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults has been developed for all health care settings and patient groups, but ease of use and agreement with other published tools when screening to identify malnutrition requires investigation. The present study assessed the agreement and the prevalence of malnutrition risk between ‘MUST’ and a variety of other tools in the same patients and compared the ease of using these tools. Groups of patients were consecutively screened using ‘MUST’ and: (1) MEREC Bulletin (MEREC) and Hickson and Hill (HH) tools (fifty gastroenterology outpatients); (2) nutrition risk score (NRS) and malnutrition screening tool (MST; seventy-five medical inpatients); (3) short-form mini nutritional assessment (MNA-tool; eighty-six elderly and eighty-five surgical inpatients); (4) subjective global assessment (SGA; fifty medical inpatients); (5) Doyle undernutrition risk score (URS; fifty-two surgical inpatients). Using ‘MUST’, the prevalence of malnutrition risk ranged from 19–60% in inpatients and 30% in outpatients. ‘MUST’ had ‘excellent’ agreement (κ 0.775–0.893) with MEREC, NRS and SGA tools, ‘fair–good’ agreement (κ 0.551–0.711) with HH, MST and MNA-tool tools and ‘poor’ agreement with the URS tool (κ 0.255). When categorisation of malnutrition risk differed between tools, it did not do so systematically, except between ‘MUST’ and MNA-tool (P=0.0005) and URS (P=0.039). ‘MUST’ and MST were the easiest, quickest tools to complete (3–5 min). The present investigation suggested a high prevalence of malnutrition in hospital inpatients and outpatients (19–60% with ‘MUST’) and ‘fair–good’ to ‘excellent’ agreement beyond chance between ‘MUST’ and most other tools studied. ‘MUST’ was quick and easy to use in these patient groups.

scholarly journals Nutritional risk assessment using Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) in COVID-19 patients: An observational study in a tertiary care hospital in Eastern India

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUDESHNA MAITRA NAG ◽  
SUBHROJYOTI BHOWMICK ◽  
SAYANTANI BHOWMICK ◽  
UTTIYA DEB ◽  
DEBARATI KUNDU ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool

Aims: To diagnose malnutrition, the nutritional status of each infected patient should be evaluated before starting general treatment. The role of Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) in evaluating nutritional status of COVID-19 patients is still unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of MUST in assessment of nutritional status of COVID-19 patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of hospitalized COVID-19 patients above 18 years of age from July 25th to September 25th, 2020. All COVID-19 patients with a length of hospital stay greater than 24 hours underwent malnutrition screening and nutritional assessment based upon MUST. Demographic data, laboratory parameters and MUST score were retrieved from case files. Results: Out of 106 COVID-19 patients included in the study, 68 (64%) were male and 38 (36%) were female. Number of deaths due to COVID-19 was 17 (16.03%). A total of 22 (20.75%) patients had MUST score of 2 and above. Analysis between MUST score and age group showed statistically significant result (p=0.012). MUST score according to clinical outcome at the end of hospitalization was also statistically significant (p<0.001). Conclusion: Our results highlight a possible role of MUST as screening tool for malnutrition in COVID-19 patients. Keywords: COVID-19, nutritional risk, MUST score, malnutrition, coronavirus

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document