Elsevier

Clinical Nutrition

Volume 22, Issue 3, June 2003, Pages 321-336
Clinical Nutrition

SPECIAL ARTICLE
Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5614(02)00214-5Get rights and content

Abstract

Background & Aims: A system for screening of nutritional risk is described. It is based on the concept that nutritional support is indicated in patients who are severely ill with increased nutritional requirements, or who are severely undernourished, or who have certain degrees of severity of disease in combination with certain degrees of undernutrition. Degrees of severity of disease and undernutrition were defined as absent, mild, moderate or severe from data sets in a selected number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and converted to a numeric score. After completion, the screening system was validated against all published RCTs known to us of nutritional support vs spontaneous intake to investigate whether the screening system could distinguish between trials with a positive outcome and trials with no effect on outcome.

Methods: The total number of randomized trials identified was 128. In each trial, the group of patients was classified with respect to nutritional status and severity of disease, and it was determined whether the effect of nutritional intervention on clinical outcome was positive or absent.

Results: Among 75 studies of patients classified as being nutritionally at-risk, 43 showed a positive effect of nutritional support on clinical outcome. Among 53 studies of patients not considered to be nutritionally at-risk, 14 showed a positive effect (P=0.0006). This corresponded to a likelihood ratio (true positive/false positive) of 1.7 (95% CI: 2.3–1.2). For 71 studies of parenteral nutrition, the likelihood ratio was 1.4 (1.9–1.0), and for 56 studies of enteral or oral nutrition the likelihood ratio was 2.9 (5.9–1.4).

Conclusion: The screening system appears to be able to distinguish between trials with a positive effect vs no effect, and it can therefore probably also identify patients who are likely to benefit from nutritional support.

Introduction

Undernutrition is common in hospitals and one study showed that among the 40% of the patients, who were undernourished at admission, about 75% lost further weight during hospitalization (1). The deterioration of nutritional status is probably linked to several factors concerning food supply, apart from the disease process itself 2., 3.. However, the lack of a widely accepted screening system which will detect patients who might benefit clinically from nutritional support may be considered a major factor. A survey among doctors and nurses in Danish hospitals showed that the lack of a proper screening tool was seen as one of the major reasons for not initiating nutritional support (4).

Up to the present, the available screening systems, however, have not been validated with respect to clinical outcome, as also stated recently by the ASPEN board of directors (5). They also suggested that, in the absence of an outcomes validated approach, a combination of clinical and biochemical parameters should be used to assess the presence of malnutrition. They suggest to use the subjective global assessment, SGA (6), which classifies patients subjectively on the basis of data obtained from history and physical examination, since this system has been validated in several ways other than with respect to clinical outcome. On the other hand, a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been carried out to investigate the clinical effect of nutritional support, and some of these have shown a positive effect, while others have not. In most of these studies, some measure of nutritional status was used as a criterion for inclusion, stratification or description, but commonly used screening systems were seldom used as inclusion criteria 7., 8..

We therefore attempted to establish a screening system2 using a retrospective analysis of controlled trials and the nutritional criteria or characteristics and clinical outcome in these studies. The system was developed on the assumption that the indications for nutritional support are the severity of undernutrition and the increase in nutritional requirements, resulting from the disease, i.e. that severe undernutrition or severe disease by themselves or in varying combinations may indicate the need for nutritional support. This will also include patients who are not undernourished at the time but are at risk of becoming so because of disease and/or its treatment, e.g. major trauma, surgery or chemotherapy, since both may cause impairment of food intake and increased stress-metabolism. The concept of relating nutritional status to severity of disease is well-recognized, as displayed for example in the decision box (2), which emphasizes the need for acting on possible further impairment of nutritional status during the clinical course of the disease. These concepts are illustrated both by the study of Bastow et al. (9) in elderly women with fractured neck of femur, which showed that nutritional support was effective only in those who were particularly undernourished, but not in those who were less undernourished, and the study by Müller et al. (10) which showed that the positive effect of preoperative nutritional support disappeared when the surgical technique was changed from a transthoracic procedure to a less invasive stapling procedure.

Our screening system which was designed to include measures of current potential undernutrition as well as disease severity was then validated against all controlled trials of nutritional support known to us, in order to evaluate whether it was capable of distinguishing those with a positive clinical outcome from those that showed no benefit from nutritional support. The analysis and the recommendations were reviewed and discussed with an ESPEN ad hoc working group under the auspices of the ESPEN Educational Committee.

Section snippets

Screening system

Table 1 shows the screening system, developed as explained in detail in the appendix. Patients are scored in each of the two components (1) undernutrition and (2) disease severity, according to whether they are absent, mild, moderate or severe, giving a total score 0–6. Patients with a total score of ≥3 are classified as nutritionally at-risk. Undernutrition was estimated using three variables used in most screening tools: BMI, percent recent weight loss and change in food intake, since these

Results

A total of 128 studies containing a total of 8944 patients were analyzed. Table 2 shows the categorization of studies, outcome variables, patient categories and mode of feeding. Only one study was in category 0 with respect to severity of disease (126) and only one study was in category 3 with respect to undernutrition (134), and therefore these categories are not shown in the table. Some studies, using predominantly parenteral nutrition, showed a negative effect on outcome: more major

Discussion

The screening system was developed on the basis of intervention studies that were illustrative of the overall concept. However, dietary history was included among the variables defining undernutrition with the same weight as the other variables, despite the fact that only few studies used dietary history as part of the initial characterization of the patients. Also, the definition of the categories of inadequate intake as mild, moderate, or severe was estimated due to lack of accurate

References (207)

  • McWhirter J P, Pennington C R. Incidence and recognition of malnutrition in hospital. BMJ 1994; 308:...
  • Allison S A. The uses, limitations of nutritional support. Clin Nutr 1992; 11:...
  • Kondrup J. Can food intake in hospitals be improved? Clin Nutr 2001; 20 (Suppl 1):...
  • Rasmussen H H, Kondrup J, Ladefoged K et al. Clinical nutrition in Danish hospitals: a questionnaire-based...
  • ASPEN Board of directors. Guidelines for the use of parenteral, enteral nutrition in adult and pediatrc care. J...
  • Detsky A S, McLaughlin J R, Baker J P et al. What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status? J Parenter...
  • Smith R C, Hartemink R. Improvement of nutritional measures during preoperative parenteral nutrition in patients...
  • VA TPN Co-operative Study Group. Perioperative total parenteral nutrition in surgical patients. N Engl J Med 1991; 325:...
  • Bastow M D, Rawlings J, Allison S P. Benefits of supplementary tube feeding after fractured neck of femur: a randomised...
  • Müller J M, Keller H W, Brenner U et al. Indications and effects of preoperative parenteral nutrition. World J Surg...
  • Cabre E, Gonzalez-Huix F, Abad-Lacruz A et al. Effect of total enteral nutrition on the short-term outcome of severely...
  • Schols A M, Soeters P B, Mostert R et al. Physiologic effects of nutritional support and anabolic steroids in patients...
  • Rana S K, Bray J, Menzies-Gow N et al. Short term benefits of postoperative oral dietary supplements in surgical...
  • Keele A M, Bray M J, Emery P W et al. Two phase randomised controlled clinical trial of postoperative oral dietary...
  • Beier-Holgersen R, Boesby S. Influence of postoperative enteral nutrition on postsurgical infections. Gut 1996; 39:...
  • Gariballa S E, Parker S G, Taub N et al. A randomized, controlled, a single-blind trial of nutritional supplementation...
  • Keys A, Brozek J, Henschel A et al. In: The biology of Human Starvation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,...
  • Rapp R P, Young B, Twyman D et al. The favorable effect of early parenteral feeding on survival in head-injured...
  • Grahm T W, Zadrozny D B, Harrington T. The benefits of early jejunal hyperalimentation in the head-injured patient....
  • Weisdorf S A, Lysne J, Wind D et al. Positive effect of prophylactic total parenteral nutrition on long-term outcome of...
  • Pedersen A N, Ovesen L F (ed). Recommendations for Food in Public Institutions in Denmark. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry...
  • American College of Physicians. Parenteral nutrition in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 1989;...
  • Buzby G P. Overview of randomized clinical trials of total parenteral nutrition for malnourished surgical patients....
  • Campos A C, Meguid M M. A critical appraisal of the usefulness of perioperative nutritional support. Am J Clin Nutr...
  • Dempsey D T, Mullen J L, Buzby G P. The link between nutritional status and clinical outcome: can nutritional...
  • Detsky A S, Baker J P, O’Rourke K et al. Perioperative parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107:...
  • Donaldson S S. Nutritional support as an adjunct to radiation therapy. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1984; 8:...
  • Heyland D K, MacDonald S, Keefe L et al. Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a meta-analysis....
  • Klein S, Simes J, Blackburn G L. Total parenteral nutrition and cancer clinical trials. Cancer 1986; 58:...
  • Klein S, Koretz R L. Nutrition support in patients with cancer: what do the data really show? Nutr Clin Pract 1994; 9:...
  • Klein S, Kinney J, Jeejeebhoy K et al. Nutrition support in clinical practice: review of published data and...
  • Kondrup J, Muller M J. Energy and protein requirements of patients with chronic liver disease. J Hepatol 1997; 27:...
  • Nompleggi D, Bonkovsky H. Nutritional supplementation in chronic liver disease: An analytical review. Hepatology 1994;...
  • Ovesen L. Anorexia in patients with cancer with special references on its association with early changes in food intake...
  • Potter J, Langhorne P, Roberts M. Routine protein energy supplementation in adults: systematic review. BMJ 1998; 317:...
  • Koretz R L, Lipman T O, Klein S. AGA technical review on parenteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 2001; 121:...
  • Lewis S J, Egger M, Sylvester P A et al. Early enteral feeding versus “nil by mouth” after gastrointestinal surgery:...
  • Kondrup J, Rasmussen H H, Hamberg O et al. Assessment of nutritional risk (abstract). Clin Nutr 2001; 21:...
  • Abel R M, Beck C H J, Abbott W M et al. Improved survival from acute renal failure after treatment with intravenous...
  • Abel R M, Fischer J E, Buckley M J et al. Malnutrition in cardiac surgical patients. Results of a prospective,...
  • Achord J L. A prospective randomized clinical trial of peripheral amino acid-glucose supplementation in acute alcoholic...
  • Arnold C, Richter M P. The effect of oral nutritional supplements on head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys...
  • Askanazi J, Hensle T W, Starker P M et al. Effect of immediate postoperative nutritional support on length of...
  • Baek S M, Makabali G G, Bryan-Brown C W et al. The influence of parenteral nutrition on the course of acute renal...
  • Beattie A H, Prach A T, Baxter J P et al. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of enteral nutritional...
  • Bellantone R, Doglietto G B, Bossola M et al. Preoperative parenteral nutrition in the high risk surgical patient. J...
  • Bellantone R, Doglietto G B, Bossola M et al. Preoperative parenteral nutrition in malnourished high-risk surgical...
  • Bozzetti F, Gavazzi C, Miceli R et al. Perioperative total parenteral nutrition in malnourished, gastrointestinal...
  • Brennan M F, Pisters P W, Posner M et al. A prospective randomized trial of total parenteral nutrition after major...
  • Bunout D, Aicardi V, Hirsch S et al. Nutritional support in hospitalized patients with alcoholic liver disease. Eur J...
  • Cited by (2100)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Members of the ad hoc working group under the auspices of the ESPEN Educational Committee: Maria Camilo, Lisbon, Portugal; Rosemary Richardson, Edinburgh, UK; Marinos Elia, Southampton, UK; Simon Allison, Nottingham, UK; Remy Meier, Liestal, Switzerland; Mathias Plauth, Dessau, Germany. 2By our definitions, a screening system is a rapid identification of patients who require nutritional support, carried out by the admitting staff and organized by the ward staff. A nutritional assessment is performed by a nutrition expert in the few patients who may have particular metabolic or nutritional problems and may require special feeding techniques.

    View full text