[Are the tools recommended by ASPEN and ESPEN comparable for assessing the nutritional status?]

[corrected] There is no "gold standard" for identification of malnutrition. The ASPEN board of directors (2002) suggest the subjective global assessment (SGA) and ESPEN (2002) recommend the nutritional risk screening-2002 (NRS-2002) to detect the prevalence of malnutrition.

This cross-sectional study aims (1) to assess the prevalence of malnutrition on admission and (2) to know association between two tools used to evaluate nutritional risk.

135 patients (42.2% women and 58.8% men, 62.1 +/- 14.4 years) are studied at admission. Different parameters are assessed to evaluate nutritional state. Patient's energy requirements (Harris Benedict x Long's factor) and energy intake, calculated as 24 h-recall, are compared. The prevalence of malnutrition is assessed with two screening tools: SGA and NRS-2002.

42.2% of the patients had lost more than 5% body weight and 39.3% had an intake lower than required at admission. The prevalence of malnutrition is 40.7 and 45.1/100 patients admitted at hospital, if SGA or NRS-2002 are used, respectivility. There is strong agreement between results of two nutritional assessment methods (p = 0.000). Serum albumin and protein concentrations and linfocytes count are less in the malnourished patients.

The prevalence of malnutrition is elevated. In clinical practice, both methods could be used to identify patients at nutritional risk, but the NRS-2002 is a less subjective method.