METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 134 geriatric patients with a mean age of 68.9 ± 8.4 who stayed at acute care wards in Hospital Tuanku Ampuan Rahimah, Klang from July 2017 to August 2017. The SGA, MNA, and GNRI were administered through face-to-face interviews with all the participants who gave their consent. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the GNRI and MNA were analyzed against the SGA. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to obtain the area under the curve (AUC) and suitable optimal cutoff values for both the GNRI and MNA.
RESULTS: According to the SGA, MNA, and GNRI, 26.9%, 42.5%, and 44.0% of the participants were malnourished, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the GNRI were 0.622, 0.977, 0.982, and 0.558, respectively, while those for the MNA were 0.611, 0.909, 0.932, and 0.533, respectively. The AUC of the GNRI was comparable to that of the MNA (0.831 and 0.898, respectively). Moreover, the optimal malnutrition cutoff value for the GNRI was 94.95.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of malnutrition remains high among hospitalized elderly patients. Validity of the GNRI is comparable to that of the MNA, and use of the GNRI to assess the nutritional status of this group is proposed with the new suggested cutoff value (GNRI ≤ 94.95), as it is simpler and more efficient. Underdiagnosis of malnutrition can be prevented, possibly reducing the prevalence of malnourished hospitalized elderly patients and improving the quality of the nutritional care process practiced in Malaysia.
METHODS: The AD8 was translated into Malay for Malay-speaking participants. A correlation analysis and a receiver operator characteristic curve were generated to establish the psychometric properties of the AD8 in relation to the MoCA.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients and their caretakers completed the AD8 and MoCA. Using a cutoff score of 1/8, the AD8 had 81% sensitivity and 59% specificity for the detection of cognitive impairment in PD. With a cutoff score of 2/8, the AD8 had 83% specificity and 64% sensitivity. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was 80%, indicating good-to-excellent discriminative ability.
DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that the AD8 can reliably differentiate between cognitively impaired and cognitively normal patients with PD and is a useful caregiver screening tool for PD.