Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorTrollebø, Marte Almenning
dc.contributor.authorSkeie, Eli
dc.contributor.authorRevheim, Ingrid
dc.contributor.authorStangeland, Helene
dc.contributor.authorErstein, Mari-Anne Heggelien
dc.contributor.authorGrønning, Martin Kristoffer
dc.contributor.authorTangvik, Randi Julie
dc.contributor.authorMorken, Mette Helvik
dc.contributor.authorNygård, Ottar Kjell
dc.contributor.authorEagan, Tomas Mikal Lind
dc.contributor.authorRosendahl-Riise, Hanne
dc.contributor.authorDierkes, Jutta
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-19T13:48:08Z
dc.date.available2022-12-19T13:48:08Z
dc.date.created2022-12-05T12:19:06Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.issn2045-2322
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3038602
dc.description.abstractNutritional 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherNatureen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleComparison of nutritional risk screening with NRS2002 and the GLIM diagnostic criteria for malnutrition in hospitalized patientsen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2022 The Author(s)en_US
dc.source.articlenumber19743en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/s41598-022-23878-3
dc.identifier.cristin2088674
dc.source.journalScientific Reportsen_US
dc.identifier.citationScientific Reports. 2022, 1219743.en_US
dc.source.volume12en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal