Evidence Hub

Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002) is a strong and modifiable predictor risk score for short-term and long-term clinical outcomes: secondary analysis of a prospective randomised trial

L. Hersberger, L. Bargetzi, Annika Bargetzi, P. Tribolet, R. Fehr, Valerie Baechli, M. Geiser, Manuela Deiss et al.

Clinical Nutrition, 2019

183 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) identifies patients at risk of malnutrition. We studied the prognostic implications of this score with regard to short-term and long-term clinical outcomes in a well-characterised cohort of medical inpatients from a previous trial.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of an investigator-initiated, prospective randomised controlled multicenter trial in Switzerland (EFFORT) that compared the effects of an individualised nutritional support intervention with standard of care. We investigated associations between admission NRS and several short-term and long-term outcomes using multivariable regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 2028 patients, 31% had an NRS of 3, 38% of 4 and 31% of ≥5 points, and 477 (24%) died during the 180 days of follow-up. For each point increase in NRS, we found a stepwise increase in risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48), p = 0.048) and 180-day mortality (adjusted HR 1.37 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.55), p < 0.001). NRS was associated with length of hospital stay (adjusted difference of 0.60 days per NRS point increase, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.97, p = 0.002) and functional outcomes at 180 days (adjusted decrease in Barthel index of -4.49 points per NRS point increase, 95%CI -6.54 to -2.45, p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, associations of NRS and short-term adverse outcomes were less pronounced in patients receiving nutritional support (intervention group) compared to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free