AI Article Synopsis

  • - Pediatric patients in low-income countries face high malnutrition risks, with various screening tools like SGNA, PYMS, STAMP, and STRONGkids developed to assess nutritional status, although anthropometry remains the primary assessment method.
  • - A study involving 1,000 children aged 1-12 years assessed these tools' effectiveness against anthropometric measurements, revealing that STRONGkids had the best sensitivity and specificity for detecting malnutrition.
  • - Findings suggest that using nutritional screening tools is beneficial for quickly identifying malnutrition risk in children, making them a recommended practice in clinical settings.

Article Abstract

Purpose: Pediatric patients in low-income countries are at a high risk of malnutrition. Numerous screening tools have been developed to detect the risk of malnutrition, including the Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment (SGNA), Pediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS), Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Pediatrics (STAMP), and Screening Tool for Risk of Nutritional Status and Growth (STRONGkids). However, anthropometry remains the main tool for assessing malnutrition. We aimed to identify the value of four nutritional screening tools versus anthropometry for evaluating the nutritional status of children.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 1,000 children aged 1-12 years who visited the outpatient clinic of Cairo University Pediatric Hospital. Each participant was evaluated using anthropometric measurements (weight, length/height, and weight for length/height) as well as the PYMS, STAMP, STRONGkids, and SGNA screening tools. The sensitivities and specificities of these four tools were assessed using anthropometry as the gold standard.

Results: Of the patients, 1.7% were underweight, 10.2% were wasted, and 35% were stunted. STRONGkids demonstrated the highest sensitivity (79.4%) and a high specificity (80.2%) for detecting malnutrition compared with weight for height, followed by STAMP, which demonstrated lower sensitivity (73.5%) but higher specificity (81.4%). PYMS demonstrated the lowest sensitivity (66.7%) and the highest specificity (93.5%), whereas SAGA demonstrated higher sensitivity (77.5%) and lower specificity (85.4%) than PYMS.

Conclusion: The use of nutritional screening tools to evaluate the nutritional status of children is valuable and recommended as a simple and rapid method for identifying the risk of malnutrition in pediatric patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10356972PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5223/pghn.2023.26.4.213DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

screening tools
20
nutritional status
16
nutritional screening
12
risk malnutrition
12
nutritional
8
tools versus
8
anthropometric measurements
8
evaluating nutritional
8
status children
8
pediatric patients
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!