In clinical settings, standing height measurement is often difficult to perform due to patients\' inability to stand upright. Height prediction equations derived from measurements of the length of other body segments have been published; however, they are not readily applicable to all populations since ethnic differences affect the relationship between standing height and body segment length. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the accuracy of height prediction using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) height predictive equations among Greek patients and to develop new, nationally representative equations. The study population consisted of 1198 Greek adult outpatients able to stand upright without assistance and without medical conditions that affected their height. Standing height, ulna length, knee height and demi-span measurements were obtained from 599 males and 599 females. Patients were stratified into age groups of <55 and ≥55 years, <60 and ≥60 years and <65 and ≥65 years according to the categories indicated by the MUST for height prediction from alternative measurements. There were positive correlations between standing height and ulna length and knee height and demi-span length (p < 0.001) in both sexes and all age categories. A strong correlation was observed between the measured and predicted standing height using ulna length (rho = 0.870, p < 0.001), knee height (rho = 0.923, p < 0.001) and demi-span length (rho = 0.906, p < 0.001). The average difference between the MUST indicative equations\' height predictions from alternative measurements and actual height was -3.04 (-3.32, -2.76), -1.21 (-1.43, -0.988) and 2.16 (1.92, 2.41), respectively. New height prediction equations for Greek patients were identified, with the predicted values closer to the measured standing heights than those predicted with the MUST indicative equations for height prediction from alternative measurements.

UNASSIGNED: The Global Leader Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria have been recommended for malnutrition diagnosis recently, for which the first step is malnutrition risk screening with any validated tool. This study aims to investigate the incidence of nutritional risk and malnutrition in Crohn\'s disease inpatients and compare the suitability of Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) as the first-step screening tool for GLIM criteria.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of Crohn\'s disease inpatients in our hospital from August 2016 to December 2019. NRS-2002 and MUST were used for nutritional screening at the time of admission. GLIM and Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) were used for malnutrition assessment, respectively. Patients without nutritional risk screened by NRS-2002 but with malnutrition risk screened by MUST were especially screened out. The appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI), fat-free mass index (FFMI), body fat percent (BFP), and body cell mass (BCM) were measured by the Biospace Inbody S10 composition analyzer.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 146 Crohn\'s disease patients were enrolled, of which 62.3 and 89.7% had nutritional or malnutrition risk according to NRS-2002 and MUST, respectively. The prevalence of malnutrition assessed by GLIM was 59.6% (87 cases) and 82.2% (120 cases) when NRS-2002 and MUST were used as the first step of GLIM respectively. Meanwhile, 99 patients (67.8%) had malnutrition when assessed by PG-SGA. There were 41 patients who were not at nutritional risk according to NRS-2002 but were at malnutrition risk determined by MUST. At last, 33 patients were GLIM-defined, and 16 patients were PG-SGA-defined malnutrition among the 41 patients.
UNASSIGNED: The nutritional risk or malnutrition is common in Crohn\'s disease inpatients. It is recommended to use a variety of nutritional assessment tools for Crohn\'s disease inpatients. MUST can be used as a good supplement for the patients with a score of NRS-2002 lower than 3 in order to decrease the miss rate of GLIM-defined malnutrition.

UNASSIGNED: The Global Leader Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria have been recommended for malnutrition diagnosis recently, for which the first step is malnutrition risk screening with any validated tool. This study aims to investigate the incidence of malnutrition risk in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) inpatients and compare the suitability of Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) as the first-step screening tool for GLIM criteria.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of GIST inpatients in our hospital from January 2015 to December 2019. NRS2002 and MUST were used to screen malnutrition risk at the time of admission. The diagnostic consistency of these two tools with GLIM criteria for malnutrition was analyzed, and the predictive performance of both tools for the length of hospital stay and the occurrence of complications was also evaluated in surgical and non-surgical inpatients.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 269 GIST inpatients were included in this study, of which 45.7 and 40.9% were at malnutrition risk determined by NRS2002 and MUST, respectively. In non-surgical inpatients, NRS2002 and MUST had similar diagnostic consistency with GLIM criteria in sensitivity (93.0 vs. 97.7%), specificity (81.1 vs. 81.1%), and Kappa value (K = 0.75 vs. 0.80), and high nutritional risk classified by NRS2002 and malnutrition identified by GLIM criteria were found to be associated with the length of hospital stay. In surgical inpatients, MUST had better diagnostic consistency with GLIM criteria in sensitivity (86.1 vs. 53.5%) and Kappa value (K = 0.61 vs. 0.30) than NRS2002, but no factors were found associated with the length of postoperative hospital stay or the occurrence of complications.
UNASSIGNED: The malnutrition risk is common in GIST inpatients. NRS2002 is more suitable than MUST for the first-step risk screening of the GLIM scheme in non-surgical inpatients, considering its better performance in screening malnutrition risk and predicting clinical outcomes. MUST was found to have good diagnostic consistency with GLIM criteria for malnutrition in both non-surgical and surgical GIST inpatients, and further studies need to be conducted to investigate its predictive performance on clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition rates for critically ill patients being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are reported to range from 38% to 78%. Malnutrition in the ICU is associated with increased mortality, morbidity, length of hospital admission, and ICU readmission rates. The high volume of ICU admissions means that efficient screening processes to identify patients at nutritional or malnutrition risk are imperative to appropriately prioritise nutrition intervention. As the proportion of noninvasively mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU increases, the feasibility of using nutrition risk screening tools in this population needs to be established.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility of using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) with the modified NUtriTion Risk In the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score for identifying patients at nutritional or malnutrition risk in this population.
METHODS: A single-centre, prospective, descriptive, feasibility study was conducted. The MUST and mNUTRIC tool were completed within 24 h of ICU admission in a convenience sample of noninvasively mechanically ventilated adult patients (≥18 years) by a trained allied health assistant. The number (n) of eligible patients screened, time to complete screening (minutes), and barriers to completion were documented. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation), and the independent samples t-test was used for comparisons between tools.
RESULTS: Twenty patients were included (60% men; aged 65.3 [13.9] years). Screening using the MUST took a significantly shorter time to complete than screening using the mNUTRIC tool (8.1 [2.8] vs 22.1 [5.6] minutes; p = 0.001). Barriers to completion included obtaining accurate weight history for the MUST and time taken for collection of information and overall training requirements to perform mNUTRIC.
CONCLUSIONS: The MUST took less time and had fewer barriers to completion than mNUTRIC. The MUST may be the more feasible nutrition risk screening tool for use in noninvasively mechanically ventilated critically ill adults.

Assessment of malnutrition, performance status and systemic inflammation are routine aspects of clinical assessment in patients with advanced cancer. There is increasing evidence that body composition measurements from routine staging CT also have prognostic value. To date the relative prognostic value of Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS), modified Glasgow Prognostic score (mGPS) and CT derived body composition analysis in patients with advanced lung cancer has not been examined. The aim of the present study was to examine this relationship.
Clinicopathological characteristics including MUST, ECOG-PS, mGPS and body composition data were collected pre-radiotherapy from a prospectively maintained database of patients with advanced lung cancer (n = 643). Using the MUST score, patients were classified into low (MUST = 0, n = 189), medium (MUST = 1, n = 341) and high (MUST ≥ 2, n = 113) malnutrition risk and their relationship to systemic inflammatory response (SIR) and body composition with clinical outcomes were examined using univariate and multivariate analyses. Primary outcome of the study was overall survival.
Compared with the patients at low nutrition risk (MUST = 0), patients at moderate to high risk (MUST 1-≥2) had poorer ECOG-PS > 1 (p < 0.01), elevated modified frailty index (mFI) (p < 0.001), elevated mGPS (p < 0.001), lower skeletal muscle index (SMI, p < 0.01) but not lower skeletal muscle density (SMD, p = 0.115). MUST was an important prognostic marker of 12 months overall survival (p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, higher MUST (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31, p < 0.05), ECOG-PS > 1 (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.10-1.39, p < 0.001), elevated mGPS (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.33, p < 0.001) were independently associated with overall survival.
A large proportion of patients (71%) with advanced lung cancer were at moderate to high nutrition risk. Higher malnutrition risk and elevated inflammatory status were independently associated with poor overall survival. MUST, ECOG-PS and mGPS all had independent prognostic value and may form an important prognostic framework in treatment decision making and resource utilization.

OBJECTIVE: Malnutrition has an adverse effect on clinical outcomes and frail older people may be at greater risk of malnutrition. The purpose and aims of this study was to investigate the relationship between markers of malnutrition risk and clinical outcomes in a cohort of frail older hospital patients.
METHODS: 78 frail older hospital patients had the following measurements recorded; length of stay (LOS), time to medical fitness for discharge (TMFFD), body mass index (BMI), malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) and mini-nutritional assessment short-form (MNA-SF) scores, blood urea, C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin, CRP-albumin ratio; and bioelectrical impedance assessment (BIA) measurements (n = 66). Patients were grouped by mortality status 12 months post hospital admission. Grouping by albumin classification was performed (n = 66) whereby, <30 g/l indicated severe malnutrition, 30-34.9, moderate and >35, low. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed on variables as potential predictors of mortality.
RESULTS: After 12 months, 31% (n = 24) of patients died. LOS was significantly greater in this group (25.0 ± 22.9 vs 15.4 ± 12.7d, P < 0.05). BMI (23.8 ± 4.9 vs 26.4 ± 5.5 kg/m2); fat mass (FM) (17.2 ± 9.9 vs 25.5 ± 10.5 kg), fat mass index (FMI) (9.3 ± 4.1 vs 17.9 ± 2.4 kg/m2); and MNA-SF score (6.6 ± 2.4 vs 8.6 ± 2.7) were significantly lower (P < 0.05), and urea significantly higher (11.4 ± 8.7 vs 8.8 ± 4.4 mmol/l, P = 0.05). Albumin was typically low across the entire group (30.5 ± 5.9 g/l) and a potential relationship was identified between albumin and MNA-SF score. MNA-SF, FM, and FMI were significant predictors of mortality outcome by ROC curve analysis, whereas MUST was a poor predictor.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights a potential relationship between indicators of malnutrition risk and clinical outcomes in frail older hospital patients which should be studied in larger cohorts with an aim to improve patient care.

BACKGROUND: Protein energy malnutrition predisposes individuals to disease, delays recovery from illness and reduces quality of life. Care home residents are especially vulnerable, with an estimated 30%-42% at risk. There is no internationally agreed protocol for the nutritional treatment of malnutrition in the care home setting. Widely used techniques include food-based intervention and/or the use of prescribed oral nutritional supplements, but a trial comparing the efficacy of interventions is necessary. In order to define outcomes and optimise the design for an adequately powered, low risk of bias cluster randomised controlled trial, a feasibility trial with 6-month intervention is being run, to assess protocol procedures, recruitment and retention rates, consent processes and resident and staff acceptability.
METHODS: Trial recruitment began in September 2013 and concluded in December 2013. Six privately run care homes in Solihull, England, were selected to establish feasibility within different care home types. Residents with or at risk of malnutrition with no existing dietetic intervention in place were considered for receipt of the allocated intervention. Randomisation took place at the care home level, using a computer-generated random number list to allocate each home to either a dietetic intervention arm (food-based or prescribed supplements) or the standard care arm, continued for 6 months. Dietetic intervention aimed to increase daily calorie intake by 600 kcal and protein by 20-25 g.
RESULTS: The primary outcomes will be trial feasibility and acceptability of trial design and allocated interventions. A range of outcome assessments and data collection tools will be evaluated for feasibility, including change in nutrient intake, anthropometric parameters and patient-centric measures, such as quality of life and self-perceived appetite.
CONCLUSIONS: The complexities inherent in care home research has resulted in the under representation of this population in research trials. The results of this feasibility trial will be used to inform the development and design of a future cluster randomised controlled trial to compare food-based intervention with prescribed oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in the treatment of malnutrition within the care home population.
BACKGROUND: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38047922.