Cargando…

Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Hospitalized Children

Background. Malnutrition in hospitalized children can be prevented if children with risk of malnutrition are identified. Every hospital is recommended to have a standard nutritional screening tool. Numerous simple screening tools have been developed, namely Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PY...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wonoputri, Nathania, Djais, Julistio T. B., Rosalina, Ina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4178907/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25298890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/143649
_version_ 1782336981730066432
author Wonoputri, Nathania
Djais, Julistio T. B.
Rosalina, Ina
author_facet Wonoputri, Nathania
Djais, Julistio T. B.
Rosalina, Ina
author_sort Wonoputri, Nathania
collection PubMed
description Background. Malnutrition in hospitalized children can be prevented if children with risk of malnutrition are identified. Every hospital is recommended to have a standard nutritional screening tool. Numerous simple screening tools have been developed, namely Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS), Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP), and Screening Tool for Risk on Nutritional Status and Growth (STRONG-kids). None has been accepted as a universal tool. Our study aims to determine the best screening tools compared to Subjective Global Nutrition Assessment (SGNA), an assessment tool which is more complex as our gold standard. Methods. This diagnostic study involved 116 patients aged 1–15 years. Three screening tools and SGNA were examined to each subject. Statistical analysis was used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR) by results from screening tools divided into low and moderate-high risk of malnutrition compared to results from SGNA divided into no and moderate-severe malnutrition. Results. PYMS showed superior agreement to SGNA resulting in sensitivity 95.32%, specificity 76.92%, positive LR 4.13, and negative LR 0.061. STAMP resulted in sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, and negative LR, respectively, as 100%, 11.54%, 1.13, and 0 and STRONG-kids resulted in 100%, 7.7%, 1.083, and 0. Conclusion. PYMS was the most reliable screening tool.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4178907
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41789072014-10-08 Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Hospitalized Children Wonoputri, Nathania Djais, Julistio T. B. Rosalina, Ina J Nutr Metab Research Article Background. Malnutrition in hospitalized children can be prevented if children with risk of malnutrition are identified. Every hospital is recommended to have a standard nutritional screening tool. Numerous simple screening tools have been developed, namely Paediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS), Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Paediatrics (STAMP), and Screening Tool for Risk on Nutritional Status and Growth (STRONG-kids). None has been accepted as a universal tool. Our study aims to determine the best screening tools compared to Subjective Global Nutrition Assessment (SGNA), an assessment tool which is more complex as our gold standard. Methods. This diagnostic study involved 116 patients aged 1–15 years. Three screening tools and SGNA were examined to each subject. Statistical analysis was used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR) by results from screening tools divided into low and moderate-high risk of malnutrition compared to results from SGNA divided into no and moderate-severe malnutrition. Results. PYMS showed superior agreement to SGNA resulting in sensitivity 95.32%, specificity 76.92%, positive LR 4.13, and negative LR 0.061. STAMP resulted in sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, and negative LR, respectively, as 100%, 11.54%, 1.13, and 0 and STRONG-kids resulted in 100%, 7.7%, 1.083, and 0. Conclusion. PYMS was the most reliable screening tool. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014 2014-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4178907/ /pubmed/25298890 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/143649 Text en Copyright © 2014 Nathania Wonoputri et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wonoputri, Nathania
Djais, Julistio T. B.
Rosalina, Ina
Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Hospitalized Children
title Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Hospitalized Children
title_full Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Hospitalized Children
title_fullStr Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Hospitalized Children
title_full_unstemmed Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Hospitalized Children
title_short Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Hospitalized Children
title_sort validity of nutritional screening tools for hospitalized children
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4178907/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25298890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/143649
work_keys_str_mv AT wonoputrinathania validityofnutritionalscreeningtoolsforhospitalizedchildren
AT djaisjulistiotb validityofnutritionalscreeningtoolsforhospitalizedchildren
AT rosalinaina validityofnutritionalscreeningtoolsforhospitalizedchildren