The Experts below are selected from a list of 268920 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Antti A. Mäkitie - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
NRS-2002 for pre-treatment nutritional Risk Screening and nutritional status assessment in head and neck cancer patients
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015Co-Authors: Helena Orell-kotikangas, Pia Österlund, Kauko Saarilahti, Paula Ravasco, Ursula Schwab, Antti A. MäkitieAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess the value of nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) as a nutritional Risk Screening and status assessment method and to compare it with nutritional status assessed by subjective and objective methods in the Screening of head and neck cancer patients. Methods Sixty-five consecutive patients (50 male), with a median age of 61 years (range, 33–77), with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were enrolled prior to cancer therapy. Nutritional status was assessed by NRS-2002, patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), handgrip strength (HGS) and mid-arm muscle area (MAMA). Results Twenty-eight percent of patients were at nutritional Risk based on NRS-2002, and 34 % were malnourished according to PG-SGA, while 43 % had low HGS. NRS-2002 cut-off score of ≥3 compared with the nutritional status according to PG-SGA showed 77 % specificity and 98 % sensitivity ( K = 0.78). NRS-2002 was able to predict malnutrition (PG-SGA BC) both in men ( p
-
nrs 2002 for pre treatment nutritional Risk Screening and nutritional status assessment in head and neck cancer patients
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015Co-Authors: Helena Orellkotikangas, Pia Österlund, Kauko Saarilahti, Paula Ravasco, Ursula Schwab, Antti A. MäkitieAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess the value of nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) as a nutritional Risk Screening and status assessment method and to compare it with nutritional status assessed by subjective and objective methods in the Screening of head and neck cancer patients.
Jens Kondrup - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
impact of preoperative nutritional support on clinical outcome in abdominal surgical patients at nutritional Risk
Nutrition, 2012Co-Authors: Bin Jie, Zhu Ming Jiang, Marie T Nolan, Shai Nan Zhu, Jens KondrupAbstract:OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, prospective cohort study evaluated the effect of preoperative nutritional support in abdominal surgical patients at nutritional Risk as defined by the Nutritional Risk Screening Tool 2002 (NRS-2002). METHODS: A consecutive series of patients admitted for selective abdominal surgery in the Peking Union Medical College Hospital and the Beijing University Third Hospital in Beijing, China were recruited from March 2007 to July 2008. Data were collected on the nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002), the application of perioperative nutritional support, surgery, complications, and length of stay. A minimum of 7 d of parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition before surgery was considered adequate preoperative nutritional support. RESULTS: In total 1085 patients were recruited, and 512 of them were at nutritional Risk. Of the 120 patients with an NRS score at least 5, the complication rate was significantly lower in the preoperative nutrition group compared with the control group (25.6% versus 50.6%, P = 0.008). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the preoperative nutrition group than in the control group (13.7 ± 7.9 versus 17.9 ± 11.3 d, P = 0.018). Of the 392 patients with an NRS score from 3 to 4, the complication rate and the postoperative hospital stay were similar between patients with and those without preoperative nutritional support (P = 1.0 and 0.770, respectively). CONCLUSION: This finding suggests that preoperative nutritional support is beneficial to patients with an NRS score at least 5 by lowering the complication rate.
-
eurooops an international multicentre study to implement nutritional Risk Screening and evaluate clinical outcome
Clinical Nutrition, 2008Co-Authors: Janice Sorensen, Jens Kondrup, Jacek Prokopowicz, Marc Schiesser, Lukas Krahenbuhl, Remy Meier, Martin LiberdaAbstract:Summary Background & aims The aim of the study was to implement nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002) and to assess the association between nutritional Risk and clinical outcome. Methods NRS-2002 was implemented in 26 hospital departments (surgery, internal medicine, oncology, intensive care, gastroenterology and geriatrics) in Austria, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Germany, Hungary, Lebanon, Libya, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. Being a prospective cohort study, randomly selected adult patients were included at admission and followed during their hospitalisation. Data were collected on the nutritional Risk Screening, complications, mortality, length of stay and discharge. The correlation between Risk status and clinical outcome was assessed and adjusted for confounders (age, speciality, diagnoses, comorbidity, surgery, cancer and region) by multivariate regression analysis. Results Of the 5051 study patients, 32.6% were defined as ‘at-Risk’ by NRS-2002. ‘At-Risk’ patients had more complications, higher mortality and longer lengths of stay than ‘not at-Risk’ patients and these variables were significantly related to components of NRS-2002, also when adjusted for confounders. Conclusions Components of NRS-2002 are independent predictors of poor clinical outcome.
-
espen guidelines for nutrition Screening 2002
Clinical Nutrition, 2003Co-Authors: Jens Kondrup, M Elia, S P Allison, Bruno Vellas, M PlauthAbstract:Abstract Aim : To provide guidelines for nutrition Risk Screening applicable to different settings (community, hospital, elderly) based on published and validated evidence available until June 2002. Note : These guidelines deliberately make reference to the year 2002 in their title to indicate that this version is based on the evidence available until 2002 and that they need to be updated and adapted to current state of knowledge in the future. In order to reach this goal the Education and Clinical Practice Committee invites and welcomes all criticism and suggestions (button for mail to ECPC chairman).
-
nutritional Risk Screening nrs 2002 a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials
Clinical Nutrition, 2003Co-Authors: Jens Kondrup, Henrik Rasmussen, Ole Hamberg, Z StangaAbstract:Background & aims A system for Screening of nutritional Risk is described. It is based on the concept that nutritional support is indicated in patients who are severely ill with increased nutritional requirements, or who are severely undernourished, or who have certain degrees of severity of disease in combination with certain degrees of undernutrition. Degrees of severity of disease and undernutrition were defined as absent, mild, moderate or severe from data sets in a selected number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and converted to a numeric score. After completion, the Screening system was validated against all published RCTs known to us of nutritional support vs spontaneous intake to investigate whether the Screening system could distinguish between trials with a positive outcome and trials with no effect on outcome. Methods The total number of randomized trials identified was 128. In each trial, the group of patients was classified with respect to nutritional status and severity of disease, and it was determined whether the effect of nutritional intervention on clinical outcome was positive or absent. Results Among 75 studies of patients classified as being nutritionally at-Risk, 43 showed a positive effect of nutritional support on clinical outcome. Among 53 studies of patients not considered to be nutritionally at-Risk, 14 showed a positive effect (P=0.0006). This corresponded to a likelihood ratio (true positive/false positive) of 1.7 (95% CI: 2.3-1.2). For 71 studies of parenteral nutrition, the likelihood ratio was 1.4 (1.9-1.0), and for 56 studies of enteral or oral nutrition the likelihood ratio was 2.9 (5.9-1.4). Conclusion The Screening system appears to be able to distinguish between trials with a positive effect vs no effect, and it can therefore probably also identify patients who are likely to benefit from nutritional support.
Ursula Schwab - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
NRS-2002 for pre-treatment nutritional Risk Screening and nutritional status assessment in head and neck cancer patients
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015Co-Authors: Helena Orell-kotikangas, Pia Österlund, Kauko Saarilahti, Paula Ravasco, Ursula Schwab, Antti A. MäkitieAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess the value of nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) as a nutritional Risk Screening and status assessment method and to compare it with nutritional status assessed by subjective and objective methods in the Screening of head and neck cancer patients. Methods Sixty-five consecutive patients (50 male), with a median age of 61 years (range, 33–77), with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were enrolled prior to cancer therapy. Nutritional status was assessed by NRS-2002, patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), handgrip strength (HGS) and mid-arm muscle area (MAMA). Results Twenty-eight percent of patients were at nutritional Risk based on NRS-2002, and 34 % were malnourished according to PG-SGA, while 43 % had low HGS. NRS-2002 cut-off score of ≥3 compared with the nutritional status according to PG-SGA showed 77 % specificity and 98 % sensitivity ( K = 0.78). NRS-2002 was able to predict malnutrition (PG-SGA BC) both in men ( p
-
nrs 2002 for pre treatment nutritional Risk Screening and nutritional status assessment in head and neck cancer patients
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015Co-Authors: Helena Orellkotikangas, Pia Österlund, Kauko Saarilahti, Paula Ravasco, Ursula Schwab, Antti A. MäkitieAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess the value of nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) as a nutritional Risk Screening and status assessment method and to compare it with nutritional status assessed by subjective and objective methods in the Screening of head and neck cancer patients.
Paula Ravasco - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
NRS-2002 for pre-treatment nutritional Risk Screening and nutritional status assessment in head and neck cancer patients
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015Co-Authors: Helena Orell-kotikangas, Pia Österlund, Kauko Saarilahti, Paula Ravasco, Ursula Schwab, Antti A. MäkitieAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess the value of nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) as a nutritional Risk Screening and status assessment method and to compare it with nutritional status assessed by subjective and objective methods in the Screening of head and neck cancer patients. Methods Sixty-five consecutive patients (50 male), with a median age of 61 years (range, 33–77), with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were enrolled prior to cancer therapy. Nutritional status was assessed by NRS-2002, patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), handgrip strength (HGS) and mid-arm muscle area (MAMA). Results Twenty-eight percent of patients were at nutritional Risk based on NRS-2002, and 34 % were malnourished according to PG-SGA, while 43 % had low HGS. NRS-2002 cut-off score of ≥3 compared with the nutritional status according to PG-SGA showed 77 % specificity and 98 % sensitivity ( K = 0.78). NRS-2002 was able to predict malnutrition (PG-SGA BC) both in men ( p
-
nrs 2002 for pre treatment nutritional Risk Screening and nutritional status assessment in head and neck cancer patients
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015Co-Authors: Helena Orellkotikangas, Pia Österlund, Kauko Saarilahti, Paula Ravasco, Ursula Schwab, Antti A. MäkitieAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess the value of nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) as a nutritional Risk Screening and status assessment method and to compare it with nutritional status assessed by subjective and objective methods in the Screening of head and neck cancer patients.
Kauko Saarilahti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
NRS-2002 for pre-treatment nutritional Risk Screening and nutritional status assessment in head and neck cancer patients
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015Co-Authors: Helena Orell-kotikangas, Pia Österlund, Kauko Saarilahti, Paula Ravasco, Ursula Schwab, Antti A. MäkitieAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess the value of nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) as a nutritional Risk Screening and status assessment method and to compare it with nutritional status assessed by subjective and objective methods in the Screening of head and neck cancer patients. Methods Sixty-five consecutive patients (50 male), with a median age of 61 years (range, 33–77), with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were enrolled prior to cancer therapy. Nutritional status was assessed by NRS-2002, patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), handgrip strength (HGS) and mid-arm muscle area (MAMA). Results Twenty-eight percent of patients were at nutritional Risk based on NRS-2002, and 34 % were malnourished according to PG-SGA, while 43 % had low HGS. NRS-2002 cut-off score of ≥3 compared with the nutritional status according to PG-SGA showed 77 % specificity and 98 % sensitivity ( K = 0.78). NRS-2002 was able to predict malnutrition (PG-SGA BC) both in men ( p
-
nrs 2002 for pre treatment nutritional Risk Screening and nutritional status assessment in head and neck cancer patients
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015Co-Authors: Helena Orellkotikangas, Pia Österlund, Kauko Saarilahti, Paula Ravasco, Ursula Schwab, Antti A. MäkitieAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess the value of nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) as a nutritional Risk Screening and status assessment method and to compare it with nutritional status assessed by subjective and objective methods in the Screening of head and neck cancer patients.
