Observational study reveals superior diagnostic accuracy of RFH-NPT and LDUST for detecting malnutrition risk in cirrhotic patients, highlighting the value of liver-specific screening tools.
Malnutrition risk screening in cirrhotic patients is crucial, as poor nutritional status negatively affects disease prognosis and survival. Given that a variety of malnutrition screening tools is usually used in routine clinical practice, the effectiveness of eight screening tools in detecting malnutrition risk in cirrhotic patients was sought. A total of 170 patients (57·1 % male, 59·4 (sd 10·5) years, 50·6 % decompensated ones) with cirrhosis of various aetiologies were enrolled. Nutritional screening was performed using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Nutritional Risk Index, Malnutrition Screening Tool, Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002), Birmingham Nutritional Risk Score, Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire, Royal Free Hospital Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT) and Liver Disease Undernutrition Screening Tool (LDUST). Malnutrition diagnosis was defined using the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Data on 1-year survival were available for 145 patients. The prevalence of malnutrition risk varied according to the screening tools used, with a range of 13·5-54·1 %. RFH-NPT and LDUST were the most accurate in detecting malnutrition (AUC = 0·885 and 0·892, respectively) with a high sensitivity (97·4 and 94·9 %, respectively) and fair specificity (73·3 and 58 %, respectively). Malnutrition according to SGA was an independent prognostic factor of within 1-year mortality (relative risk was 2·17 (95 % CI 1·0, 4·7), P = 0·049) after adjustment for sex, age, disease aetiology and Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, whereas nutrition risk according to RFH-NPT, LDUST and NRS-2002 showed no association. RFH-NPT and LDUST were the only screening tools that proved to be accurate in detecting malnutrition in cirrhotic patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Georgiou et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: