Autores: Fiol Martínez, L.; Calleja-Fernández, A.; Pintor de la Maza, B.; Vidal-Casariego, A.; Villar-Taibo, R.; Urioste-Fondo, A.;
Cuervo Zapatel, Marta; Cano-Rodriguez, I.; Ballesteros-Pomar, M. D.
Resumen:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of the study was to compare two nutritional screening tools in oncohematologic inpatients.
METHODS:
A 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.
RESULTS:
Sixty-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.
CONCLUSION:
MUST might be a better screening tool than MST for detecting the risk for malnutrition in oncohematological inpatients.
