| Title |
Prevalence of hospital malnutrition among cardiac patients: results from six nutrition screening tools
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-1801-3-412 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anidu K Pathirana, Niroshan Lokunarangoda, Ishara Ranathunga, Wijeyasingam Samuel Santharaj, Ruwan Ekanayake, Ranil Jayawardena |
| Abstract |
Malnutrition is highly prevalent among hospitalized patients, ranging from 30% to 50% depending on the patient population and the criteria used for diagnosis. Identifying early those who are malnourished and at risk of malnutrition and intervening at an early stage will improve patients overall prognosis and will reduce the costs to the state. Even though cardiac patients are at risk of malnutrition, data on the prevalence of malnutrition among cardiology inpatients is limited. The aim of the study was to assess malnutrition status of the newly admitted patients in a specialist cardiology institution in Sri Lanka by internationally recommended nutrition screening and assessment tools. During study period, 322 (61.22%) males and 204 (38.78%) females were recruited. Malnutrition status assessed by each screening tool had a wide variation. According to Mini Nutritional Assessment tool 69.6% were having possible malnutrition. Malnutrition Screening Tool 47.9% to be at risk of malnutrition. Subjective Global Assessments categorized only 4.2% as malnourished on the other hand Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool categorized 20.4% and 19.6% subjects as at medium risk and high risk of malnutrition respectively. Nutritional Risk Screening detected 6.3%, 25.1% and 24.9% patients to be mildly, moderately and severely malnourished respectively. Short Nutrition Assessment Questionnaire categorized 5.0% and 17.7% patients to be moderately malnourished and severely malnourished correspondingly. In conclusion, Although malnutrition was prevalent among this population, a wide variation in the nutritional status when assessed by widely used internationally recognized tools was observed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 5% |
| Researcher | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 22 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 1% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 August 2014.
All research outputs
#15,252,676
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#928
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,511
of 230,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#60
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 230,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.