4.6 Article

Relationships between nutritional markers and the mini-nutritional assessment in 155 older persons

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Volume 48, Issue 10, Pages 1300-1309

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02605.x

Keywords

nutrition; older; aging; Mini-Nutritional Assessment; geriatric

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationships between nutritional status measured by a comprehensive nutritional assessment including anthropometric measurements, nutritional biological markers, evaluation of dietary intake, and the Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) nutrition screening tool. DESIGN: A prospective study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty-five older subjects (53 men and 102 women; mean age = 78 years; range = 56-97 years). These participants were hospitalized in a geriatric evaluation unit (n = 105) or free living in the community (n = 50). MEASUREMENT: Weight, height, knee height, midarm and calf circumferences, triceps and subscapular skinfolds, albumin, transthyretin (prealbumin), transferrin, ceruroplasmin, C-reactive protein, alpha(1)-acid glycoprotein, cholesterol, vitamins A, D, E, B-1, B-2, B-6, B-12, folate, copper, zinc, a 3 day food record combined with a food-frequency questionnaire; the MNA nutritional screening. RESULTS: The MNA scores have been found to be significantly correlated to nutritional intake (P < .05 for energy, carbohydrates, fiber, calcium, vitamin D, iron, vitamin B6, and vitamin C), anthropometric and biological nutritional parameters (P < .001 for albumin, transthyretin, transferrin, choresterol, retinol, alpha-tocopherol, 25-OH cholecalciferol zinc). An MNA score between 17 and 23.5 can identify those persons with mild malnutrition in which nutrition intervention may be effective. CONCLUSIONS: The MNA is a practical, noninvasive, and cost-effective instrument allowing for rapid nutritional evaluation and effective intervention in frail older persons..

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available