Cited by 3,063Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyNutrition and Health in AgingEnhanced Recovery After Surgery

Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials

KONDRUP, J·2003·Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0261-5614(02)00214-5

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Intravenous fat emulsions based solely on soybean oil rich in 18 carbon omega-6 fatty acids have likely pro-inflammatory effects.

    “From previous and recent recommendations(2,42), it is clear that the use of intravenous fat emulsions based solely on a soybean oil rich in 18 carbon omega-6 FA should be avoided due to their likely pro-inflammatory effects.”
  • Patients with low muscle mass found at admission have a higher length of stay and higher mortality.

    “A very recent study showed that patients with low muscle mass found at admission have a higher length of stay and higher mortality (42).”
  • ESPEN recommended the use of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) in community settings, the Nutritional Risk Screening tool (NRS-2002) in clinical settings, and the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) for the elderly.

    “ESPEN recommended the use of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) in community settings (48), the Nutritional Risk Screening tool (NRS-2002) in clinical settings (49), and the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) for the elderly (50).”
  • A definition of acute critical illness-associated malnutrition still needs to be developed.

    “A definition of acute critical illnessassociated malnutrition still needs to be developed [8].”
  • The existing nutritional screening tools NRS 2002 and MUST have not been designed specifically for critically ill patients.

    “The existing nutritional screening tools (nutritional risk screening (NRS) 2002 [8] and the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) score [9]) have not been designed specifically for critically ill patients.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KONDRUP, J.
Affiliations
Rigshospitalet (DK)
Corresponding author
KONDRUP, J
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
321-336
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052139208
Cited by
3,063
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 262 · 2025: 285 · 2024: 310 · 2023: 252 · 2022: 262 · 2021: 227 · 2020: 231 · 2019: 147 · 2018: 141 · 2017: 151 · 2016: 133 · 2015: 140 · 2014: 119 · 2013: 82 · 2012: 71
FWCI
10.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
Keywords
nutritional risk screening, NRS-2002, nutritional support, malnutrition, disease severity, nutritional status, parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, oral nutrition, likelihood ratios, screening validation, critically ill patients
MeSH terms
Enteral Nutrition, Humans, Mass Screening, Parenteral Nutrition, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Nutrition Assessment, Likelihood Functions, Logistic Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Nutritional Support, Malnutrition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review