Comparison of two nutritional assessment methods in gastroenterology patients

Table 1 Distribution of nutritional status upon admittance according to the gastrointestinal diagnosis observed by SGA and NRI

Nourishment status/diagnosis	SGA assessment1		NRI assessment2
	Well	Malnourished	Well	Malnourished
Benign	140	76	90	126
Malignant	23	60	18	65
Total	163	136	108	191

¹χ² = 46.24, DF = 1, P < 0.001;

²Cochrans κ index = 0.367; P < 0.001. SGA: Subjective global assessment; NRI: Nutritional risk index.

Table 2 Differences in laboratory values of obtained parameters according to the applied nutritional scores (mean ± SD)

Parameters (serum)	Well	Malnourished	Significance t test
SGA assessment	n = 163	n = 136
Glucose (mmol/L)	5.68 ± 1.06	4.83 ± 1.14	F = 10.63, P = 0.001
Cholesterol (mmol/L)	5.52 ± 0.96	3.54 ± 0.79	F = 10.61, P = 0.001
C reactive protein (mg/L)	12.42 ± 16.48	22.08 ± 18.46	F = 11.44, P = 0.001
NRI assessment	n = 108	n = 191
Lymphocyte count (%)	25.56 ± 8.94	21.77 ± 10.08	F = 11.55, P = 0.001
Cholesterol (mmol/L)	5.25 ± 1.04	4.27 ± 1.35	F = 8.27, P < 0.05
C reactive protein (mg/L)	11.25 ± 8.86	19.97 ± 20.93	F = 6.48, P < 0.05

Degrees of freedom = 297; NS: Not significant.

Table 3 Distribution of anthropometric measures and parameters of bioelectrical impedance analysis obtained by SGA (mean ± SD)

Parameters	SGA assessment		Significance t test
	Well	Malnourished
	n = 163	n = 136
MAC (cm)	28.28 ± 2.70	23.21 ± 2.06	F = 10.20, P = 0.002
MAMC (cm)	11.56 ± 12.62	8.23 ± 10.47	F = 73.22, P < 0.001
TSF (mm)	9.92 ± 2.47	5.25 ± 1.77	F =5.92, P = 0.02
Waist circumferences (cm)	90.16 ± 10.92	70.03 ± 8.01	F = 24.56, P < 0.001
Body mass index (kg/m2)	26.03 ± 4.53	18.17 ± 1.52	F = 58.36, P < 0.001
Total body water (kg)	42.62 ± 7.98	36.22 ± 9.32	F = 7.95, P = 0.005
Resistance of whole body (Ω)	545.86 ± 89.97	661.50 ± 98.89	F = 4.77, P = 0.03
Basal metabolic rate (kcal)	1625.14 ± 304.91	1344.62 ± 219.08	F = 9.06, P = 0.003
Impedance-index	55.3184 ± 13.00	46.4059 ± 9.33	F = 6.73, P = 0.01

Degrees of freedom = 297. MAC: Mid–arm circumferences; MAMC: Mid-arm muscle circumferences; TSF: Triceps skinfold thickness.

Table 4 Differences in anthropometric measures and parameters of bioelectrical impedance analysis obtained by NRI (mean ± SD)

Parameters	NRI assessment		Significance t test
	Well	Malnourished
	n = 108	n = 191
MAC (cm)	27.51 ± 2.73	25.11 ± 3.60	F = 7.88, P = 0.005
MAMC (cm)	10.63 ± 12.42	9.68 ± 11.41	F = 11.55, P = 0.001
TSF (mm)	9.09 ± 2.72	7.06 ± 3.20	F = 11. 55, P = 0.007
Waist circumferences (cm)	88.51 ± 10.71	76.76 ± 13.81	F = 7.14, P = 0.008
Resistance of whole body (Ω)	554.40 ± 91.07	623.37 ± 112.57	F = 5.98, P =0.02
Impedance-index	54.36 ± 12.20	45.51 ± 12.03	F = 6.82, P = 0.01

Table 5 SGA and NRI assessments of nourished and malnourished patients according to the length of hospitalization

Length of hospital stay	SGA assessment		NRI assessment
	Well	Malnourished	Well	Malnourished
	n = 163	n = 136	n = 108	n = 191
< 10 d	90	26	58	58
> 10 d	73	1101	50	1332
Total	163	136	108	191

¹χ² = 40.69, DF = 1, P < 0.001;

²χ² = 15.82, DF = 1, P < 0.001.

Table 6 Discriminant function analysis for particular groups of analyzed variables

Status	Centroids	Section points	Selecting equation	Percentage of accuracy
SGA
Well	-2.466	0.420	-2.58 + 0.04 × [albumins] - 0.038 × [proteins] + 2.83 × SGA score - 0.03 × body weight	100%
Malnourished	2.884
NRI
Well	1.72	0.365	-11.75 + 0.17 × MAMC -0.20 × [glucose] + 1.04 × NRI score	93.7%
Malnourished	-0.99