Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Mini Review
  • Published:

Different risk scores consider different types of risks: the deficiencies of the 2015 ESPEN consensus on diagnostic criteria for malnutrition

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 72, pages 936–941 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

In 2015, an European Society for the Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition malnutrition diagnosis consensus was published to unify the definition and simplify the diagnostic procedure of malnutrition, in which 'nutritional risk', 'malnutrition risk' and 'at risk of malnutrition' were referred to several times, and 'at risk of malnutrition' was encouraged to be coded and reimbursed in the International Classification of Diseases and diagnosis-related group system systems. However, there may be some mistakes when using the concepts of different 'risk' mentioned above. In this study, we aimed to explain different 'risks' using the original concept by different screening tools to clarify the definition and provide a recommendation for nutritional screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cederholm T, Bosaeus I, Barazoni R, Bauer J, Van Gossum A, Klek S, et al. Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition: An ESPEN Consensus Statement. Clin Nutr. 2015;34:335–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kondrup J, Alison SP, Elia M, Vellas B, Plauth M. Educational and Clinical Practice Committee, European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN). ESPEN Guidelines for Nutrition Screening 2002. Clin Nutr. 2003;2:415–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mueler C, Compher C, Elen DM. American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of Directors. A.S.P.E.N. clinical guidelines: Nutrition screening, assessment, and intervention in adults. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2011;35:16–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren MA, Guaitoli PR, Jansma EP, de Vet HC. Nutrition screening tools: does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting. Clin Nutr. 2014;33:39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schindler K, Pernicka E, Laviano A, Howard P, Schütz T, Bauer P, et al. How nutritional risk is assessed and managed in European hospitals: a survey of 21, 007 patients findings from the 2007–8 cross-sectional nutrition Day survey. Clin Nutr. 2010;29:552–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kondrup J, Rasmusen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z, Ad Hoc ESPEN Working Group. Nutritional risk screening (NRS2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials. Clin Nutr. 2003;22:321–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jie B, Jiang ZM, Nolan MT, Efron DT, Zhu SN, Yu K, et al. Impact of nutritional support on clinical outcome in patients at nutritional risk: a multicenter, prospective cohort study in Baltimore and Beijing teaching hospitals. Nutrition. 2010;26:1088–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jie B, Jiang ZM, Nolan MT, Zhu SN, Yu K, Kondrup J. Impact of preoperative nutritional support on clinical outcome in abdominal surgical patients at nutritional risk. Nutrition. 2012;28:1022–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang H, Wang Y, Jiang ZM, Kondrup J, Fang H, Andrews M, et al. The impact of nutrition support on clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analysis in patients at nutritional risk: a prospective cohort study with propensity score matching. Nutrition. 2017;37:53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, Warren MM, Johnson DR, Braunschweig C, et al. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2016;40:159–211.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Skipper A, Ferguson M, Thompson K, Castellanos VH, Porcari J. Nutrition screening tools: an analysis of the evidence. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2012;36:292–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. American Dietetic Asociation. ADA evidence analysis manual [OL]. EdIc. 2005. http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/topic.cfm?cat=1155&library=EAL. Accessed on 10 August 2016.

  13. Guigoz Y, Vellas J, Garry P. Mini nutritional assessment: a practical assessment tool for grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Facts Res Gerontol. 1994;4:15–59.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rubenstein LZ, Harker JO, Salvà A, Guigoz Y, Vellas B. Screening for undernutrition in geriatric practice: developing the short□ form mini nutritional assessment (MNA-SF). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:458–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sánchez Mu ozLA, Calvo Reyes MC, Majo Carbajo Y, Barbado-Ajo J, Aragón De La Fuente MM, Artero-Ruiz EC, et al. Mini nutritional assessment (MNA) as nutrition screening tool in internal medicine. Advantages and disadvantages. Rev Clin Esp. 2010;210:429–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vischer UM, Frangos E, Graf C, Gold G, Weiss L, Herrmann FR, et al. The prognostic significance of malnutrition assessed by the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) in older hospitalized patients with a heavy disease burden. Clin Nutr. 2012;31:13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Putwatana P, Reodecha P, Sirapongam Y, Lertsithichai P, Sumboonnanonda K. Nutrition screening tools and the prediction of postoperative infectious and wound complications: comparison of methods in presence of risk adjustment. Nutrition. 2005;21:691–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Donini LM, Savina C, Rosano A, De Felice MR, Tassi L, De Bernardini L, et al. MNA predictive value in the follow-up of geriatric patients. J Nutr Health Aging. 2003;7:282–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ranhof AH, Gjen AU, Mowé M. Screening for malnutrition in elderly acute medical patients: the usefulness of MNA-SF. J Nutr Health Aging. 2005;9:21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nelemat F, Merjets J, Kruizenga H, van Ballegooijen H, van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren M. Comparison of five malnutrition screening tools in one hospital inpatient sample. J Clin Nurs. 2001;20:2144–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Elia M. The ‘MUST’ report. In: BAPEN, editor. Nutritional screening of adults: a multidisciplinary responsibility 2003.

  22. Raslan M, Gonzalez MC, Dias MC, Nascimento M, Castro M, Marques P, et al. Comparison of nutritional risk screening tools for predicting clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. Nutrition. 2010;26:721–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Henderson S, More N, Le E, Witham MD. Do the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) and Birmingham nutrition risk(BNR) score predict mortality in older hospitalized patients? BMC Geriatr. 2008;8:26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. White JV, Guenter P, Jensen G, Malone A, Schofield M, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Malnutrition Work Group; A.S.P.E.N. Malnutrition Task Force; A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors. Consensus statement: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: characteristics recommended for the identification and documentation of adult malnutrition (undernutrition). JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2012;36:275–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Soeters P, Bozzetti F, Cynober L, Forbes A, Shenkin A, Sobotka L. Defining malnutrition: a plea to rethink. Clin Nutr. 2017;36:896–901.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Contents of National Essential Medicare and Reimbursement formulary of China. http://www.mohrss.gov.cn/gkml/xxgk/201702/t20170223_266775.html. Accessed on 12 July 12 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the member of [NUSOC multicenter cooperative group] who did good work in this field and provided evidence for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, No.1 Dahua Road, Dongdan, Beijing, 100730, China

    Jingyong Xu

  2. Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, No.1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China

    Zhuming Jiang

Authors
  1. Jingyong Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhuming Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jingyong Xu or Zhuming Jiang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, J., Jiang, Z. Different risk scores consider different types of risks: the deficiencies of the 2015 ESPEN consensus on diagnostic criteria for malnutrition. Eur J Clin Nutr 72, 936–941 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0120-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0120-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links