↓ Skip to main content

Preoperative nutritional screening by the specialist instead of the nutritional risk score might prevent excess nutrition: a multivariate analysis of nutritional risk factors

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preoperative nutritional screening by the specialist instead of the nutritional risk score might prevent excess nutrition: a multivariate analysis of nutritional risk factors
Published in
Nutrition Journal, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12937-015-0024-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabian Grass, Martin Hübner, Markus Schäfer, Pierluigi Ballabeni, Yannick Cerantola, Nicolas Demartines, François P Pralong, Pauline Coti Bertrand

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to assess whether widely used nutritional parameters are correlated with the nutritional risk score (NRS-2002) to identify postoperative morbidity and to evaluate the role of nutritionists in nutritional assessment. A randomized trial on preoperative nutritional interventions (NCT00512213) provided the study cohort of 152 patients at nutritional risk (NRS-2002 ≥3) with a comprehensive phenotyping including diverse nutritional parameters (n=17), elaborated by nutritional specialists, and potential demographic and surgical (n=5) confounders. Risk factors for overall, severe (Dindo-Clavien 3-5) and infectious complications were identified by univariate analysis; parameters with P<0.20 were then entered in a multiple logistic regression model. Final analysis included 140 patients with complete datasets. Of these, 61 patients (43.6%) were overweight, and 72 patients (51.4%) experienced at least one complication of any degree of severity. Univariate analysis identified a correlation between few (≤3) active co-morbidities (OR=4.94; 95%CI: 1.47-16.56, p=0.01) and overall complications. Patients screened as being malnourished by nutritional specialists presented less overall complications compared to the not malnourished (OR=0.47; 95%CI: 0.22-0.97, p=0.043). Severe postoperative complications occurred more often in patients with low lean body mass (OR=1.06; 95%CI: 1-1.12, p=0.028). Few (≤3) active co-morbidities (OR=8.8; 95%CI: 1.12-68.99, p=0.008) were related with postoperative infections. Patients screened as being malnourished by nutritional specialists presented less infectious complications (OR=0.28; 95%CI: 0.1-0.78), p=0.014) as compared to the not malnourished. Multivariate analysis identified few co-morbidities (OR=6.33; 95%CI: 1.75-22.84, p=0.005), low weight loss (OR=1.08; 95%CI: 1.02-1.14, p=0.006) and low hemoglobin concentration (OR=2.84; 95%CI: 1.22-6.59, p=0.021) as independent risk factors for overall postoperative complications. Compliance with nutritional supplements (OR=0.37; 95%CI: 0.14-0.97, p=0.041) and supplementation of malnourished patients as assessed by nutritional specialists (OR=0.24; 95%CI: 0.08-0.69, p=0.009) were independently associated with decreased infectious complications. Nutritional support based upon NRS-2002 screening might result in overnutrition, with potentially deleterious clinical consequences. We emphasize the importance of detailed assessment of the nutritional status by a dedicated specialist before deciding on early nutritional intervention for patients with an initial NRS-2002 score of ≥3.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 7 9%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,410,971
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,266
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,739
of 237,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#29
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 237,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.