The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guidelines recommend the Royal Free Hospital-Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT) to identify malnutrition risk in patients with liver disease. However, little is known about the application of the RFH-NPT to screen for the risk of malnutrition in China, where patients primarily suffer from hepatitis virus-related cirrhosis. A total of 155 cirrhosis patients without liver cancer or uncontrolled co-morbid illness were enrolled in this prospective study. We administered the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), RFH-NPT, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and Liver Disease Undernutrition Screening Tool (LDUST) to the patients within 24 h after admission and performed follow-up observations for 1·5 years. The RFH-NPT and NRS-2002 had higher sensitivities (64·8 and 52·4 %) and specificities (60 and 70 %) than the other tools with regard to screening for malnutrition risk in cirrhotic patients. The prevalence of nutritional risk was higher under the use of the RFH-NPT against the NRS-2002 (63 v. 51 %). The RFH-NPT tended more easily to detect malnutrition risk in patients with advanced Child–Pugh classes (B and C) and lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores (<15) compared with NRS-2002. RFH-NPT score was an independent predictive factor for mortality. Patients identified as being at high malnutrition risk with the RFH-NPT had a higher mortality rate than those at low risk; the same result was not obtained with the NRS-2002. Therefore, we suggest that using the RFH-NPT improves the ability of clinicians to predict malnutrition risk in patients with cirrhosis primarily caused by hepatitis virus infection at an earlier stage.

Malnutrition risk screening in cirrhotic patients is crucial, as poor nutritional status negatively affects disease prognosis and survival. Given that a variety of malnutrition screening tools is usually used in routine clinical practice, the effectiveness of eight screening tools in detecting malnutrition risk in cirrhotic patients was sought. A total of 170 patients (57·1 % male, 59·4 (sd 10·5) years, 50·6 % decompensated ones) with cirrhosis of various aetiologies were enrolled. Nutritional screening was performed using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Nutritional Risk Index, Malnutrition Screening Tool, Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002), Birmingham Nutritional Risk Score, Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire, Royal Free Hospital Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT) and Liver Disease Undernutrition Screening Tool (LDUST). Malnutrition diagnosis was defined using the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Data on 1-year survival were available for 145 patients. The prevalence of malnutrition risk varied according to the screening tools used, with a range of 13·5–54·1 %. RFH-NPT and LDUST were the most accurate in detecting malnutrition (AUC = 0·885 and 0·892, respectively) with a high sensitivity (97·4 and 94·9 %, respectively) and fair specificity (73·3 and 58 %, respectively). Malnutrition according to SGA was an independent prognostic factor of within 1-year mortality (relative risk was 2·17 (95 % CI 1·0, 4·7), P = 0·049) after adjustment for sex, age, disease aetiology and Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, whereas nutrition risk according to RFH-NPT, LDUST and NRS-2002 showed no association. RFH-NPT and LDUST were the only screening tools that proved to be accurate in detecting malnutrition in cirrhotic patients.

Vascular surgery patients are nutritionally vulnerable. Various malnutrition screening and assessment tools are available; however, none has been developed or validated in vascular patients. The present study aimed to: (1) investigate the validity of four commonly administered malnutrition screening tools (Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Nutrition Risk Screen-2002 (NRS-2002) and the Mini-Nutritional Assessment – Short Form (MNA-SF) and an assessment tool (the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA)) compared against a comprehensive dietitian’s assessment and (2) evaluate the ability of the instruments to predict outcomes. Vascular inpatients were screened using the four malnutrition screening tools and assessed using the PG-SGA. Each was assessed by a dietitian incorporating nutritional biochemistry, anthropometry and changes in dietary intake. Diagnostic accuracy, consistency and predictive ability were determined. A total of 322 (69·3 % male) patients participated, with 75 % having at least one parameter indicating nutritional deficits. No instrument achieved the a priori levels for sensitivity (14·9–52·5 %). Neither tool predicted EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level score. All tools except the MNA-SF were associated with length of stay (LOS); however, the direction varied with increased risk of malnutrition on the MUST and NRS-2002 being associated with shorter LOS (P=0·029 and 0·045) and the reverse with the MST and PG-SGA (P=0·005 and <0·001). The NRS-2002 was associated with increased risk of complications (P=0·039). The MST, NRS-2002 and PG-SGA were predictive of discharge to an institution (P=0·004, 0·005 and 0·003). The tools studied were unable to identify the high prevalence of undernutrition; hence, vascular disease-specific screening and/or assessment tools are warranted.

Self-screening using an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (‘MUST’) has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an electronic version of ‘MUST’ and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self- screening with paper and electronic versions of ‘MUST’. For the three-category classification of ‘MUST’ (low, medium and high risk), agreement between electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P<0·001). For the two-category classification (low risk; medium+high risk) agreement was 96 % (κ=0·82, se 0·085; P<0·001), comparable with the previously reported paper-based self-screening. In all, 15 % of patients categorised themselves ‘at risk’ of malnutrition (5 % medium, 10 % high). Electronic self-screening took 3 min (sd 1·2 min), 40 % faster than previously reported for the paper-based version. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (99 %) and complete (98 %). Patients that assessed both tools found the electronic tool easier to complete (65 %) and preferred it (55 %) to the paper version. Electronic self-screening using ‘MUST’ in a heterogeneous group of hospital outpatients is acceptable, user-friendly and has ‘substantial to almost-perfect’ agreement with HCP screening. The electronic format appears to be as agreeable and often the preferred format when compared with the validated paper-based ‘MUST’ self-screening tool.

Cancer is the third leading cause of death in Kenya. However, there is scarce information on the nutritional status of cancer patients to guide in decision making. The present study sought to assess the risk of malnutrition, and factors associated with malnutrition and cachexia, among cancer out-patients, with the aim of informing nutrition programmes for cancer management in Kenya and beyond. This was a facility-based cross-sectional study performed at Kenyatta National Hospital and Texas Cancer Centre in Nairobi, Kenya. The risk of malnutrition was assessed using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). Diagnoses of malnutrition and cachexia were done using the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and Fearon criteria, respectively. A total of 512 participants were assessed. Those at risk of malnutrition were 33·1 % (12·5 % at medium risk, 20·6 % at high risk). Prevalence of malnutrition was 13·4 %. The overall weight loss >5 % over 3 months was 18·2 % and low fat-free mass index was 43·1 %. Prevalence of cachexia was 14·1 % compared with 8·5 % obtained using the local criteria. Only 18·6 % participants had received any form of nutrition services. Age was a predictor of malnutrition and cachexia in addition to site of cancer for malnutrition and cigarette smoking for cachexia. The use of the MUST as a screening tool at the first point of care should be explored. The predictive value of current nutrition assessment tools, and the local diagnostic criteria for malnutrition and cachexia should be reassessed to inform the development of appropriate clinical guidelines and future capacity-building initiatives that will ensure the correct identification of patients at risk for timely care.

Malnutrition is a frequent feature in Crohn’s disease (CD), affects patient outcome and must be recognised. For chronic inflammatory diseases, recent guidelines recommend the development of combined malnutrition and inflammation risk scores. We aimed to design and evaluate a new screening tool that combines both malnutrition and inflammation parameters that might help predict clinical outcome. In a prospective cohort study, we examined fifty-five patients with CD in remission (Crohn’s disease activity index (CDAI) <200) at 0 and 6 months. We assessed disease activity (CDAI, Harvey–Bradshaw index), inflammation (C-reactive protein (CRP), faecal calprotectin (FC)), malnutrition (BMI, subjective global assessment (SGA), serum albumin, handgrip strength), body composition (bioelectrical impedance analysis) and administered the newly developed ‘Malnutrition Inflammation Risk Tool’ (MIRT; containing BMI, unintentional weight loss over 3 months and CRP). All parameters were evaluated regarding their ability to predict disease outcome prospectively at 6 months. At baseline, more than one-third of patients showed elevated inflammatory markers despite clinical remission (36·4 % CRP ≥5 mg/l, 41·5 % FC ≥100 µg/g). Prevalence of malnutrition at baseline according to BMI, SGA and serum albumin was 2–16 %. At 6 months, MIRT significantly predicted outcome in numerous nutritional and clinical parameters (SGA, CD-related flares, hospitalisations and surgeries). In contrast, SGA, handgrip strength, BMI, albumin and body composition had no influence on the clinical course. The newly developed MIRT was found to reliably predict clinical outcome in CD patients. This screening tool might be used to facilitate clinical decision making, including treatment of both inflammation and malnutrition in order to prevent complications.

In the present study, we aimed to validate the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for routine nutritional screening in the radiation oncology setting, thus enabling timely and adequate referrals of patients at risk for individualised or advanced intervention. Towards this objective, we conducted a prospective cross-sectional study in 450 non-selected cancer patients (18–95 years) referred for radiotherapy. The following were the nutritional parameters: BMI (categorised by WHO's age/sex criteria), weight loss >5 % in the previous 3–6 months, Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA – validated/specific for oncology) and nutritional risk by MUST. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and concordance were calculated to validate MUST v. PG-SGA and compare single parameters v. PG-SGA/MUST. BMI v. PG-SGA showed a negligible capacity to detect undernutrition: 0·27 sensitivity, 0·23 specificity, 0·35 positive predictive value and 0·31 negative predictive value. Conversely, percentage weight loss v. PG-SGA was highly effective: 0·76 sensitivity, 0·85 specificity, 0·79 positive predictive value and 0·85 negative predictive value. MUST v. PG-SGA successfully detected patients at risk: 0·80 sensitivity, 0·89 specificity, 0·87 positive predictive value and 1·0 negative predictive value; percentage weight loss v. MUST proved able to identify patients likely to be at risk: 0·85 sensitivity, 0·91 specificity, 0·90 positive predictive value and 1·0 negative predictive value. This is the first study in the radiation oncology setting to validate MUST: a simple and quick method applicable by any health professional, with a high validity for early screening, ideally to antedate a comprehensive nutritional assessment and guide for intervention. In this study, percentage weight loss in the previous 3–6 months does seem valid to predict nutritional risk, and may be the minimum in a busy routine.

The objectives of the present cross-sectional study were to assess the screening, prevalence and management of malnutrition and identify any co-existence with obesity in adult hospital in-patients. The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was applied to all medical, surgical, orthopaedic and critical care in-patients in an acute hospital in North-East England on a single day in 2007. An audit was also performed of malnutrition screening using a locally developed tool. Patients were excluded from study if they had been an in-patient less than 24 h or if discharged on the day of study. Of 328 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 100 % had full data collection (143 males, 185 females, median length of stay 8 d (range 1–90 d), median age 76 years (range 17–101 years)). Only 226 patients (68·9 %) had been screened for malnutrition and thirty-one (13·7 %) were at highest malnutrition risk, of which only 45·2 % were appropriately referred to nutrition and dietetic services. The prevalence of malnutrition (MUST ≥ 1) was 44 %. The prevalence of highest risk (MUST ≥ 2) increased with age (20·6 % < 60 years, 29·7 % 60–79 years and 39·4 % ≥ 80 years). In total 37·8 % (n 70) of female patients had a MUST score of ≥ 2 compared with 24·5 % (n 35) of males. Obesity (BMI >30 kg/m2) was identified in 9·5 % of those with a MUST score ≥ 2. We have shown that malnutrition is a common problem affecting over 40 % of patients in this hospital-wide study. Currently malnutrition is often unrecognised and undertreated in clinical practice. Hospitals must develop comprehensive strategies to both identify and treat in-patients with this common condition.