SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akdeniz Tıp Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

The Comparison of Reliabilities of Nutritional Risk Scoring and Physiological Severity Score in Critical Care Patients

Yoğun Bakım Hastalarında Nütrisyonel Risk Skorlaması ve Fizyolojik Ciddiyet Skorunun Güvenilirliklerinin Karşılaştırılması

Hatice KAYA ÖZDOĞAN
Adnan KUVVETLİ
Pages
197–201
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

On the other hand, NRS-2002 had insufficient discrimination statistics.Conclusion: APACHE II is superior in outcome prediction compared to NRS-2002 in ICU patient population

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: APACHE II is most commonly used severity prognostic model in ICU patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Nutritional risk screening 2002 NRS-2002 score is widely suggested for screening of nutritional risk in general hospitalized patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the other hand, NRS-2002 had insufficient discrimination statistics.Conclusion: APACHE II is superior in outcome prediction compared to NRS-2002 in ICU patient population
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:APACHE II · NRS-2002 · Mortalite

Abstract

Objective: APACHE II is most commonly used severity prognostic model in ICU patients. Nutritional risk screening 2002 NRS-2002 score is widely suggested for screening of nutritional risk in general hospitalized patients. In this study, we aimed to compare the reliability of NRS-2002 with APACHE II on outcome in critical care patients.Material and Methods: Discrimination and calibration characteristics of the scoring systems were evaluated.Results: APACHE II on admission had moderate power of discrimination and calibration for mortality and complication prediction in critical care patients. On the other hand, NRS-2002 had insufficient discrimination statistics.Conclusion: APACHE II is superior in outcome prediction compared to NRS-2002 in ICU patient population

Özet

Amaç: APACHE II yoğun bakım hastalarında en yaygın kullanılan hastalık ciddiyet skoru ve prognostik modeldir. Nütrisyonel risk tarama 2002 NRS-2002 skoru hastaneye yatan hastalarda nütrisyonel riskin belirlenmesi amacı ile kullanılmaktadır. Çalışmada yoğun bakım hastalarında NRS2002 ve APACHE II skorlarının mortalite ve komplikasyon öngörü güçlerinin ve güvenilirliğinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Skorlama sistemlerinin mortalite ve komplikasyon tahminindeki diskriminasyon ve kalibrasyon karakteristikleri değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Yatış sırasında hesaplanan APACHE II skoru yoğun bakım hastalarında mortalite ve komplikasyon tahmininde orta düzeyde diskriminasyon ve kalibrasyon kuvvetine sahiptir. Diğer taraftan NRS-2002 skoru yetersiz discrimination istatistikleri ortaya koymuştur.Sonuç: NRS-2002 ile karşılaştırıldığında APACHE II skorunun yoğun bakım hastalarında mortalite öngörü gücü daha yüksektir

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZDOĞAN, H. K., KUVVETLİ, A. (2022). The Comparison of Reliabilities of Nutritional Risk Scoring and Physiological Severity Score in Critical Care Patients. Akdeniz Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 197–201. https://ajindex.com/articles/434475

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Boyd O, Jackson N. How is risk defined in high-risk surgical patient management? Crit Care 2005;9:390-6. Le Gall JR. The use of severity scores in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:1618-23.
  2. Correia MI, Waitzberg DL. The impact of malnutrition on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs evaluated through a multivariate model analysis. Clin Nutr 2003;22:235-9.
  3. Reilly JJ Jr, Hull SF, Albert N, Waller A, Bringardener S. Economic impact of malnutrition: A model system for hospitalized patients. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1988;12:371-6.
  4. Kuzu MA, Terzioğlu H, Genç V, Erkek AB, Ozban M, Sonyürek P, Elhan AH, Torun N. Preoperative nutritional risk assessment in predicting postoperative outcome in patients undergoing major surgery. World J Surg 2006;30:378-90.
  5. Schneider SM, Veyres P, Pivot X, Soummer AM, Jambou P, Filippi J, van Obberghen E, Hébuterne X. Malnutrition is an independent factor associated with nosocomial infections. Br J Nutr 2004;92:105-11.
  6. Correia MI, Waitzberg DL. The impact of malnutrition on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs evaluated through a multivariate model analysis. Clin Nutr 2003;22:235-9.
  7. Waitzberg DL, Saito H, Plank LD, Jamieson GG, Jagannath P, Hwang TL, Mijares JM, Bihari D. Postsurgical infections are reduced with specialized nutrition support. World J Surg 2006;30:1592-1604.
  8. Xu J, Zhong Y, Jing D, Wu Z. Preoperative enteral immunonutrition improves postoperative outcome in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. World J Surg 2006; 30:1284-9.
  9. Kondrup J, Allison SP, Elia M, Vellas B, Plauth M; Educational and Clinical Practice Committee, European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN). ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening 2002. Clin Nutr 2003;22:415-21.
  10. Johansen N, Kondrup J, Plum LM, Bak L, Nİrregaard P, Bunch E, Baernthsen H, Andersen JR, Larsen IH, Martinsen A. Effect of nutritional support on clinical outcome in patients at nutritional risk. Clin Nutr 2004;23:539-50.
  11. Kondrup J, Rasmussen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z. Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): A new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials. Clin Nutr 2003;22:321-36.
  12. Sorensen J, Kondrup J, Prokopowicz J, Schiesser M, Krähenbühl L, Meier R, Liberda M; EuroOOPS Study Group. EuroOOPS: An international, multicentre study to implement nutritional risk screening and evaluate clinical outcome. Clin Nutr 2008;27:340-9.
  13. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating c