Bibliographic citations
Izaguirre, A., Linares, C., Ayala, L. (2021). Validez diagnóstica de una herramienta de tamizaje para la predicción del riesgo de deterioro nutricional de pacientes pediátricos menores de 5 años hospitalizados en Lima [Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia]. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/9702
Izaguirre, A., Linares, C., Ayala, L. Validez diagnóstica de una herramienta de tamizaje para la predicción del riesgo de deterioro nutricional de pacientes pediátricos menores de 5 años hospitalizados en Lima []. PE: Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; 2021. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/9702
@misc{renati/910011,
title = "Validez diagnóstica de una herramienta de tamizaje para la predicción del riesgo de deterioro nutricional de pacientes pediátricos menores de 5 años hospitalizados en Lima",
author = "Ayala Ortiz, Levin",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia",
year = "2021"
}
Background: Nutritional deterioration during hospitalization is an undervalued health problem and it is associated to adverse events. It has been estimated that the undernutrition prevalence at admission in children is between 6.1 and 29.9%. Worldwide, several screening tools for the prediction of nutritional deterioration during hospitalization have been developed, with diverse objectives and parameters. The screening tool “Simple Pediatric Nutritional Risk Score” (PNRS) is rapid, easy to obtain and apply. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic validity of the PNRS for the prediction of nutritional deterioration risk in pediatric patients under 5 years old hospitalized in a hospital localized in Lima. Methods: This was a retrospective diagnostic validation study. Data was collected from pediatric inpatients medical records admitted between January 1st and December 31st 2019. The gold standard was a weight loss of 2% or more of the weight at admission and PNRS of 1 point or more as the threshold. Results: 292 medical records were included. The prevalence of in-hospital undernutrition was 20%, sensitivity was 96.55% (95% confidence interval (CI95) 93.79-98.12), specificity was 7.63% (5.11-11.24), positive predictive value was 20.44% (16.22-25.41), negative predictive value was 90% (68.3-98.77) and the area under ROC curve was 0.52 (0.44,0.60). Conclusions: Despite obtaining high sensibility and negative predictive value, the PNRS doesn’t distinguish satisfactorily between patients with nutritional deterioration risk because of low AUC. Therefore, we don’t recommend this tool.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License