Key result
MNA-SF best identifies significant malnutrition in chronic HF with 99% specificity.
Why the study?
Malnutrition is common and associated with adverse outcomes in chronic heart failure, but few data exist comparing malnutrition tools.
Which malnutrition screening tool has the best classification performance in patients with chronic heart failure?
Population
467 consecutive patients with CHF attending clinic for follow-up
Comparison
Agreement and classification performance of 6 malnutrition tools (CONUT, GNRI, PNI, MUST, MNA-SF, SGA)
Design
Observational diagnostic agreement study
Authors
Loading...
Supports MNA-SF for malnutrition screening in chronic HF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
Cross-Sectional (n=467)
No
Which malnutrition screening tool has the best classification performance in patients with chronic heart failure?
Among 6 malnutrition tools evaluated in chronic heart failure patients, MNA-SF demonstrated the best classification performance for identifying significant malnutrition.
Sze et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Chronic Heart Failure (n=467). Malnutrition screening tools (CONUT, GNRI, PNI, MUST, MNA-SF, SGA) vs. Standard combined index (≥3/5 tools) was evaluated on Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values in identifying significant malnutrition. In patients with chronic heart failure, the MNA-SF tool demonstrated the best classification performance for identifying significant malnutrition, with 99% specificity and a 2% misclassification rate.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: