We have located links that may give you full text access.
Evaluating the concurrent validity of body mass index (BMI) in the identification of malnutrition in older hospital inpatients.
Clinical Nutrition 2018 November 11
BACKGROUND: Nutrition screening and assessment tools often include body mass index (BMI) as a component in identifying malnutrition risk. However, rising obesity levels will impact on the relevancy and applicability of BMI cut-off points which may require re-evaluation. This study aimed to explore the relationship between commonly applied BMI cut-offs and diagnosed malnutrition.
METHODS: Data (age, gender, BMI and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) ratings) were analysed for 1152 inpatients aged ≥65 years across annual malnutrition audits (2011-2015). The receiver operation characteristic (ROC) curve analysed the optimal BMI cut-off for malnutrition and concurrent validity of commonly applied BMI cut-offs in nutritional screening and assessment tools.
RESULTS: Malnutrition prevalence was 36.0% (n = 372) using SGA criteria (not malnourished, moderate or severe malnutrition). Median age was 78.7 (IQR 72-85) years, median BMI 25.4 (IQR 21.8-29.7) kg/m2 ; 52.1% male and 51.2% overweight/obese. ROC analysis identified an optimal BMI cut-off of <26 kg/m2 , 80.8% sensitivity and 61.5% specificity (AUC 0.802, 95% CI 0.773, 0.830; p < 0.0001). Commonly applied BMI cut-offs (between 18.5 and 23 kg/m2 ) failed to meet the alpha-priori requirement of 80% sensitivity and 60% specificity. However, BMI <23 kg/m2 had the highest agreement (κ = 0.458) with malnutrition diagnosed using the SGA.
CONCLUSIONS: Both malnutrition and overweight/obesity are common in older inpatients. Continuing increases in the prevalence of overweight and obesity will impact on the sensitivity of BMI as a screening component for malnutrition risk. The current study suggests tools developed over a decade ago may need to be revisited in future.
METHODS: Data (age, gender, BMI and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) ratings) were analysed for 1152 inpatients aged ≥65 years across annual malnutrition audits (2011-2015). The receiver operation characteristic (ROC) curve analysed the optimal BMI cut-off for malnutrition and concurrent validity of commonly applied BMI cut-offs in nutritional screening and assessment tools.
RESULTS: Malnutrition prevalence was 36.0% (n = 372) using SGA criteria (not malnourished, moderate or severe malnutrition). Median age was 78.7 (IQR 72-85) years, median BMI 25.4 (IQR 21.8-29.7) kg/m2 ; 52.1% male and 51.2% overweight/obese. ROC analysis identified an optimal BMI cut-off of <26 kg/m2 , 80.8% sensitivity and 61.5% specificity (AUC 0.802, 95% CI 0.773, 0.830; p < 0.0001). Commonly applied BMI cut-offs (between 18.5 and 23 kg/m2 ) failed to meet the alpha-priori requirement of 80% sensitivity and 60% specificity. However, BMI <23 kg/m2 had the highest agreement (κ = 0.458) with malnutrition diagnosed using the SGA.
CONCLUSIONS: Both malnutrition and overweight/obesity are common in older inpatients. Continuing increases in the prevalence of overweight and obesity will impact on the sensitivity of BMI as a screening component for malnutrition risk. The current study suggests tools developed over a decade ago may need to be revisited in future.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app