Comparison of two nutrition assessment techniques in hospitalized patients

Objective Different methods have been used to assess nutritional status in hospitalized patients, and there is no agreement as to which index best reflects nutritional status. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of malnutrition and compare the Subjective Global Assessment, Nutrition Risk Index, and non-nutritional factors in hospitalized patients. Methods This prospective study was done in the teaching hospital of Pamukkale University Medical School, Denizli, Turkey. Two hundred fifty-one consecutive patients hospitalized in medical and surgical wards were studied. On admission, the Subjective Global Assessment, Nutrition Risk Index, anthropometric measurements, and laboratory data were assessed. Differences between independent groups were assessed with Studentʹs t test and one-way analysis of variance. Spearmanʹs rank correlation coefficients were calculated for associations between scores and variables. Agreement between two assessment methods was analyzed by the K statistic. Results On admission, 30% of patients were malnourished according to the Subjective Global Assessment and 36% according to the Nutrition Risk Index. Body weight, albumin, lymphocyte, total cholesterol, and anthropometric data were lower in the malnourished patients according to both assessments (P < 0.01). Body weight loss and length of stay were higher in the malnourished patients according to both assessments (P < 0.01). Body weight, anthropometric data, albumin, and total cholesterol correlated inversely with nutritional status according to both techniques. Concordance was observed in 203 of the 251 (81%) patients with both assessments (K = 0.57, P = 0.000). Conclusions Both tests correlated with each other with respect to age, length of stay, and anthropometric and laboratory data in hospitalized patients. Therefore, these two techniques can be used for nutritional assessment in hospitalized patients.