A local nutritional screening tool compared to malnutrition universal screening tool.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to compare the Glasgow Nutritional Screening Tool with the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) recently recommended for use by the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.


METHODS
Comparison-validation study.


METHODS
Four adult acute hospitals in Glasgow, UK.


METHODS
All 242 in-patients from a variety of specialties.


METHODS
Two investigators independently interviewed 202 in-patients for the comparison-validation study. Each used a single tool with each patient, using each tool in turn. Investigators were not aware of each other's assessments. Forty other patients were interviewed by both raters separately using the local tool to evaluate inter-rater reliability.


RESULTS
When compared with MUST as a 'gold standard', the local tool had a sensitivity of 95.3% and a specificity of 64.9%, with moderate agreement between the two tools using kappa test (kappa=0.57). Agreement between the raters was substantial (kappa=0.69) with 85% of patients classified the same by both raters.


CONCLUSIONS
The Glasgow Nutritional Screening Tool is a valid and reliable tool that can be used on admission for nutritional screening.
Gerasimidis
K
K
Human Nutrition Section, Division of Developmental Medicine, University of Glasgow, Yorkhill Hospitals, Glasgow, UK.
Drongitis
P
P
Murray
L
L
Young
D
D
McKee
R F
RF
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D044342:Malnutrition / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D008875:Middle Aged; D015995:Prevalence; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires / Q000592:standards*; D006113:United Kingdom