期刊文献+

应用前白蛋白检测营养风险筛查2002、主观全面评定和微小营养评定的灵敏度和特异度:探索性、前瞻性、多中心临床研究 被引量:13

The use of prealbumin as index to compare sensitivities and specificities of Nutritional Risk Screening 2002, Subjective Global Assessment, Mini Nutritional Assessment: a prospective multicenter clinical studies
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的探索应用前白蛋白水平为参考标准检测营养风险筛查2002(NRS2002)、主观全面评定(SGA)及微小营养评定(MNA)的灵敏度和特异度。方法自2010年11月至2011年3月,在3个医院的肿瘤科住院患者中采用连续定点抽样方法,将符合人选条件的126例食管癌患者纳入本研究。于入院次日分别采用NRS2002、SGA及MNA工具由经过培训的营养师、肿瘤内科医师进行营养筛查或评定。以前白蛋白低于180g/L为营养不良(不足)的参考标准,分析上述3种工具的灵敏度、特异度。结果126例符合入选条件的患者均完成NRS2002、SGA及MNA的筛查或评定。NRS2002、SGA及NINA检出的有营养风险和营养不良(不足)率分别为67.0%、46.2%、64.8%。以与临床结局有关的前白蛋白为参考标准,NRS2002、SGA及MNA的灵敏度分别为78.2%、58.2%、89.1%,特异度分别为50.0%、72.2%、27.8%。结论3种工具中,NRS2002检出的是营养风险,而SGA和MNA检出的是营养不良(不足),3种工具之间有不同特点。由于单一的前白蛋白不是一个适当的参考标准,不能用于3种工具的比较。但NRS2002有关临床结局,适用于住院患者。需要进一步进行以临床结局为检测标准的多中心研究。 Objective To explore sensitivities and specificities of Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 ( NRS 2002 ) , Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), and Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) in the detection of blood prealbumin level. Methods Total 126 patients were consecutively enrolled from the oneology departments of three hospitals from November, 2010 to March, 2011. Nutritional screenings or assessments were performed on the next morning of hospital admission by nutritionists and medical oncologists using NRS 2002, SGA, and MNA. Prealbu- rain ( 〈 180 g/L) was used as the reference standard of malnutrition (undemutrition) for assessing the sensitivities/specificities of these tools. Results All 126 patients completed nutritional screening or assessment using the above three tools. The prevalence of malnutrition (undernutrition) determined by NRS 2002, SGA and MNA was 67.0%, 46. 2%, and 64. 8%, respectively. With prealbumin in relation to clinical outcome as the reference stand- ard, the sensitivities of NRS 2002, SGA, and MNA were 78.2%, 58.2% and 89. 1%, and the specificities were 50. 0%, 72. 2%, and 27. 8%, respectively. Conclusions Among these three tolls, NRS 2002 detects the nutri- tion risks, whereas SGA and MNA detect malnutrition. Since prealbumin is not an appropriate reference standard, it can not be used for the comparison among the three tools. Nevertheless, NRS 2002 reflects the clinical out- comes, and therefore is suitable for inpatients.
出处 《中华临床营养杂志》 CAS 2011年第6期360-363,共4页 Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition
关键词 营养风险 营养不足 营养风险筛查2002 主观全面评定 微小营养评定 Nutrition risk Malnutrition Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 Subjective Global Assessment Mini Nutritional Assessment
  • 相关文献

同被引文献146

  • 1蒋朱明,陈伟,江华,詹文华,陶晔璇,张澍田,蔡威.住院患者营养风险筛查指南[J].中国临床营养杂志,2007,15(1):13-15. 被引量:44
  • 2吴洪斌.肿瘤患者的营养支持治疗[J].中国医院用药评价与分析,2007,7(2):157-159. 被引量:5
  • 3梁晓坤,揭彬,蒋朱明.营养风险理念解读[J].中国临床营养杂志,2007,15(3):167-170. 被引量:59
  • 4陶晔璇,徐远飞,汤庆娅,吴江,蔡威.儿科患者入院时营养状况评价[J].中国临床营养杂志,2007,15(4):214-217. 被引量:41
  • 5诸福棠.实用儿科学[M]7版[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2002.1833.
  • 6蒋晶红,张梅,马隽.甲状腺机能亢进的营养治疗及临床评估[J].中国地方病防治,2007,22(5):397-398. 被引量:3
  • 7Secker DJ, Jeejeebhoy KN Assessment for children [J] 1083-1089. Subjective Global Nutritional Am J Clin Nutr 2007, 85(4):.
  • 8Gerasimidis K, Keane O, Macleod I, et al. A four-stage evaluation of the Paediatric Yorkhili Malnutrition Score in a tertiary paediatric hospital and a district general hospital [J]. Br JNutr, 2010, 104(5): 751-756.
  • 9Hulst JM, Zwart H, Hop WC, et al. Dutch national survey to test the STRONG kids nutritional risk screening tool in hospi- talized children [J]. Clin Nutr, 2010, 29(1): 106-111.
  • 10American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastro- enterological Association medical position statement: paren- teral nutrition [J]. Gastroenterology, 2001, 121(4): 966-969.

引证文献13

二级引证文献179

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部