Blog NRS 2002

Blog NRS 2002

An update

The evidence-base for NRS 2002 should be updated.

Almost 10 years have passed since the literature was analyzed to develop NRS 2002.
Here its use is discussed, to include new aspects in the update.

Back to NRS 2002 web page

NRS 2002 and NRS

ComparisonsPosted by Jens Kondrup Mon, September 27, 2010 22:30:52

Schwegler et al. Nutritional risk is a clinical predictor of postoperative mortality and morbidity in surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2010;97:92-7.

Pubmed

Based on the NRS-2002, there was a significant difference in postoperative complication rate between patients at nutritional risk and those not at risk (62 versus 39.8 per cent; P = 0.004) but not if Reilly's NRS was used (58 versus 44.1 per cent; P = 0.086).
Nutritional risk was identified as an independent predictor of postoperative complications (odds ratio 2.79; P = 0.002).

  • Comments(0)//nrsblog.jenskondrup.dk/#post11

NRS 2002, MNA-SF and MUST

ComparisonsPosted by Jens Kondrup Mon, September 27, 2010 22:25:41

Raslan et al. Comparison of nutritional risk screening tools for predicting clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. Nutrition 2010;26:721-6.

Pubmed

Performance in predicting complications, very long length of hospital stay (LOS), and death was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curves.
NRS 2002 (complications: 0.6531; very long LOS: 0.6508; death: 0.7948) and MNA-SF (complications: 0.6495; very long LOS: 0.6197; death: 0.7583) had largest areas under the ROC curve compared to MUST (complications: 0.6036; very long LOS: 0.6109; death: 0.6363).
For elderly patients, NRS 2002 was not significantly different than MNA-SF (P>0.05) for predicting outcomes.

  • Comments(0)//nrsblog.jenskondrup.dk/#post9

NRS 2002 and SGA II

ComparisonsPosted by Jens Kondrup Mon, September 27, 2010 22:23:23

Ozkalkanli et al. Comparison of tools for nutrition assessment and screening for predicting the development of complications in orthopedic surgery. Nutr Clin Pract 2009;24:274-80.

Pubmed

In patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, NRS 2002 predicted development of complications better than the SGA.

  • Comments(0)//nrsblog.jenskondrup.dk/#post8

NRS 2002 and SGA

ComparisonsPosted by Jens Kondrup Mon, September 27, 2010 22:21:10

Kyle et al. Comparison of tools for nutritional assessment and screening at hospital admission: a population study. Clin Nutr 2006;25:409-17.

Pubmed

As compared to SGA, the sensitivity was 62%, 61% and 43% and specificity was 93%, 76% and 89% with the NRS-2002, MUST and NRI, respectively.
NRS-2002 had higher positive (85%) and negative predictive values (79%) than the MUST (65% and 76%) or NRI (76% and 66%, respectively).

  • Comments(0)//nrsblog.jenskondrup.dk/#post7