METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited children below 18 years old admitting into general paediatric ward in a public hospital. The PNST and Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment (SGNA) were performed on 100 children (64 boys and 36 girls). The objective measurements include anthropometry (z-scores for weight, height and body mass index), dietary history and biochemical markers were measured. These were used to classify malnutrition as per Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society of Parental and Enteral Nutrition (AND/ASPEN) Consensus Statement for identification of paediatric malnutrition and WHO growth standards for children. Cohen's kappa was computed to report the level of agreement.
RESULTS: The PNST identified 57% of hospitalized children as being at risk of malnutrition. In this study, there was a stronger agreement between PNST with AND/ASPEN malnutrition classification (k = 0.602) as when PNST was compared with WHO (k = 0.225) and SGNA (k = 0.431). The PNST shows higher specificity (85.29%) and sensitivity (78.79%) when compared with AND/ASPEN than with WHO malnutrition criteria (55.81% specificity and 66.67% sensitivity).
CONCLUSION: This study showed the usefulness of routine use of PNST for screening the malnutrition risk of hospitalized children in Malaysian tertiary hospital settings.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in two general paediatric wards in a public hospital. SGNA and STAMP were performed on 82 children (52 boys and 30 girls) of age 1-7 years. The scores from both methods were compared against Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society of Parental and Enteral Nutrition Consensus Statement for identification of paediatric malnutrition. The objective measurements include anthropometry (weight, height and mid-arm circumference), dietary intake and biochemical markers (C-reactive protein, total lymphocytes and serum albumin). Kappa agreement between methods, sensitivity, specificity and cross-classification were computed.
Results: SGNA and STAMP identified 45% and 79% of the children to be at risk of malnutrition, respectively. Using a compendium of objective parameters, 46% of the children were confirmed to be malnourished. The agreement between SGNA and objective measurements (k = 0.337) was stronger than between STAMP and objective measurements (k = 0.052) in evaluating the nutritional status of hospitalized children. SGNA also has a 4-fold higher specificity (70.45%) than STAMP (18.18%) in detecting children who are malnourished.
Conclusion: SGNA is a valid nutrition assessment tool in diagnosing malnutrition status among hospitalized children in Malaysia. The discrepancy in specificity values between the two methods explains the distinguished roles between SGNA and STAMP. The use of STAMP will have to be followed up with a more valid tool such as SGNA to verify the actual nutrition status of the paediatric population.