Perioperative medicine & outcomes
Multicentre prospective study on the diagnostic and prognostic validity of malnutrition assessment tools in surgery
Authors' conclusion
This study supports the use of the MUST as it is the most valid nutritional screening tool in patients after major abdominal surgery.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency major abdominal surgery for benign or malignant disease, 12 Greek hospitals, January 2022–December 2023
- Participants
- 1,649 patients · 12 Greek hospitals
- Comparison
- Malnutrition assessment tools vs subjective global assessment (SGA) as reference standard
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy vs SGA
Methodological detailsprospective, multicentre
- Prospective
- Multicentre
Performance
As reported in the abstract
| Test or model | AUC | Diagnostic OR |
|---|---|---|
| MNA-SF | 0.83 (95% c.i. 0.81 to 0.85) | 30.2 (95% c.i. 20.2 to 45.1) |
| MUST | 0.79 (95% c.i. 0.77 to 0.82) | 16.1 (95% c.i. 12.4 to 21.1) |
AUC
MNA-SF0.83 (95% c.i. 0.81 to 0.85)
MUST0.79 (95% c.i. 0.77 to 0.82)
Diagnostic OR
MNA-SF30.2 (95% c.i. 20.2 to 45.1)
MUST16.1 (95% c.i. 12.4 to 21.1)
Further findings
| Outcome | Values |
|---|---|
| Malnutrition by SGA | SGA 34.1% |
| Malnutrition risk by screening tools | NRS-2002 24.0% · MNA-SF 58.6% |
Malnutrition by SGA
- SGA had excellent construct and prognostic validity
Malnutrition risk by screening tools
- Range across tools from 24.0% (NRS-2002) to 58.6% (MNA-SF)
Construct and prognostic validity of MUST
- MUST performed well in construct and prognostic validity appraisals
Original publication
Multicentre prospective study on the diagnostic and prognostic validity of malnutrition assessment tools in surgery. Br J Surg. Published 3 March 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →