Validation of the Mini Nutritional Assessment short-form (MNA®-SF): A practical tool for identification of nutritional status

By M.J. KAISER 1, C. M. BAUER 1, W. 2, Y. Guigoz, 4. T.CEDERHOLM, ·. Thomas, K. Charlton, Vers-chez-les-Blancs, CH-1000 Vers-chez-les-Blancs, Lausanne 26 and 6 more. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 2009

1,929 citations recorded by the source corpus.

ObjectiveTo validate a revision of the Mini Nutritional Assessment short-form (MNA®-SF) against the full MNA, a standard tool for nutritional evaluation.MethodsA literature search identified studies that used the MNA for nutritional screening in geriatric patients. The contacted authors submitted original datasets that were merged into a single database. Various combinations of the questions on the current MNA-SF were tested using this database through combination analysis and ROC based derivation of classification thresholds.ResultsTwenty-seven datasets (n=6257 participants) were initially processed from which twelve were used in the current analysis on a sample of 2032 study participants (mean age 82.3y) with complete information on all MNA items. The original MNA-SF was a combination of six questions from the full MNA. A revised MNA-SF included calf circumference (CC) substituted for BMI performed equally well. A revised three-category scoring classification for this revised MNA-SF, using BMI and/or CC, had good sensitivity compared to the full MNA.ConclusionThe newly revised MNA-SF is a valid nutritional screening tool applicable to geriatric health care professionals with the option of using CC when BMI cannot be calculated. This revised MNA-SF increases the applicability of this rapid screening tool in clinical practice through the inclusion of a “malnourished” category.

Subfields: Physiology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eaf1ef0c2dc4d464d806c1e46275f267f0880bfa

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. T. Crowe
  2. L. Barker
  3. Belinda S. Gout

Citations in the corpus