© 2018 Elsevier B.V. Background: Malnutrition is a prevalent condition related to adverse outcomes in older people. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic capacity of the malnutrition criteria of the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN) with other classical diagnostic tools. Methods: Cohort study of 102 consecutive in-patients ≥70 years admitted for postacute rehabilitation. Patients were considered malnourished if their Mini-Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) score was ≤11 and serum albumin <3 mg/dL or MNA-SF ≤ 11, serum albumin <3 mg/dL, and usual clinical signs and symptoms of malnutrition. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy likelihood ratios, and kappa values were calculated for both methods: and compared with ESPEN consensus. Results: Of 102 eligible in-patients, 88 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were identified as “at risk” by MNA-SF. Malnutrition diagnosis was confirmed in 11.6% and 10.5% of the patients using classical methods,whereas 19.3% were malnourished according to the ESPEN criteria. Combined with low albumin levels, the diagnosis showed 57.9% sensitivity, 64.5% specificity, 85.9% negative predictive value,0.63 accuracy (fair validity, low range), and kappa index of 0.163 (poor ESPEN agreement). The combination of MNA-SF, low albumin, and clinical malnutrition showed 52.6% sensitivity, 88.3% specificity, 88.3%negative predictive value, and 0.82 accuracy (fair validity, low range), and kappa index of 0.43 (fair ESPEN agreement). Conclusions: Malnutrition was almost twice as prevalent when diagnosed by the ESPEN consensus, compared to classical assessment methods: Classical methods: showed fair validity and poor agreement with the ESPEN consensus in assessing malnutrition in geriatric postacute care.
- Older people