An observational study in Internal Medicine, sponsored by University of Tartu. Completed at 1 site in Estonia. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-09-19.
Sponsored by University of Tartu · Observational
Observational study. Comparison of existing nutritional screening tools based on questionnaires with blood tests already performed on a routine basis.
No intervention undertaken.
Nutrition screening is of established benefit but is difficult to ensure in ordinary clinical practice. It is relatively labour intensive. The investigation aims to determine whether routinely collected laboratory data could provide comparable information without the need for personnel time. It is known that individual blood tests do not provide sufficient sensitivity or specificity but it is hypothesised that combinations of tests could do so.
Included subjects are those admitted to the University Hospital department of internal medicine. All are eligible other than those subject to protective isolation for infection control (COVID, etc). Data collection is in the form of questionnaires to permit the calculation of 3 tools widely used for screening for malnutrition and malnutrition risk, namely the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) and the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Nutritional status is documented by the patient's status according to the international definition provided by the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM).
The blood tests already performed on a routine basis are captured to go alongside the nutrition screening tools.
Analysis will aim to determine whether combinations of laboratory data can simulate or replicate the information provided by MUST and NRS2002.
University of Tartu is the lead sponsor of 45 studies on the registry; 15 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
In-patient in department of internal medicine
In-patient in department of internal medicine
Exclusion Criteria:
Unable to complete questionnaire or in protective isolation
None other than completion of questionnaires one of which would be done in routine practice
Evaluation of new nutrition risk screening tool (devised from 200 patients) by validation in 100 contemporaneous patients in comparison with established screening tools (MUST, NRS-2002 and SGA) and malnutrition defined by GLIM.
Established tools for screening and assessing nutritional status are utilised. These are the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutrition Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002), the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM). Data from laboratory testing that has already been performed on these patients is extracted from their hospital records. It is hypothesised that multivariate analysis of indicative parameters will identify 6 to 12 tests that can be combined (with appropriate weighting) into a new predictive score. 300 sets of patient data will be divided on a randomised basis into a group of 200 from whom the prospective new scoring system will be devised, and a group of 100 in whom the score will be tested for validity against NRS-2002.
Time frame: Within 6 months of completion of recruitment
Validation of new score against GLIM
The intended new score will be tested against GLIM. The primary validation is against NRS-2002 as the score is intended as a screening tool for high risk of malnutrition, but it is important to determine whether it is also a test of established malnutrition.
Time frame: Within 6 months of completion of recruitment
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Tartu