• Lucía Fiol-Martínez, Alicia Calleja-Fernández, Begoña Pintor de la Maza, Alfonso Vidal-Casariego, Rocío Villar-Taibo, Ana Urioste-Fondo, Marta Cuervo, Isidoro Cano-Rodríguez, and María D Ballesteros-Pomar.
• Department of Nutrition, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. Electronic address: Lucia.fiol.martinez@gmail.com.
• Nutrition. 2017 Feb 1; 34: 97-100.

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to compare two nutritional screening tools in oncohematologic inpatients.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed in a hematology ward from August to December 2015. Within the first 24 h of admission, the following nutritional screenings were performed: Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Patients who stayed in the hematologic ward were reevaluated with the three screening tools 1 and 2 wk after admission. The SGA was used as the gold standard in the detection of malnutrition.ResultsSixty-three patients were included in the study. Of these, 61.9% were men, ages 64 y (SD = 17.9 y) with 90.5% having a diagnosis of cancer. The prevalence of patients with nutritional risk at admission was 17.5% with SGA, 16.7% at week 1, and 31.6% at week 2. According to MST, the prevalence was 41.3% at admission, 13.9% at week 1, and 15.8% at week 2. According to MUST, the prevalence was 36.5%, 25%, and 36.8%, respectively. The results of diagnostic tests on admission were an area under the curve receiver operating characteristic of 0.691 for MST and 0.830 for MUST at admission; at week 1, 0.717 for MST and 0.850 for MUST; and at week 2 of assessment, 0.506 for MST and 0.840 for MUST.ConclusionMUST might be a better screening tool than MST for detecting the risk for malnutrition in oncohematological inpatients.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

23 keywords...

hide…