Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Contents:

Information:

  • Access

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Concurrent validity of nutrition risk scores in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Concurrent validity of nutrition risk scores in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Concurrent validity of nutrition risk scores in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Nutritional care is a priority in the management of children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in whom deficits in weight and linear growth are common. Several paediatric nutrition risk scores have recently been published. These tools categorise children into low-, moderate- and high-nutritional risk. Although these scores share many components, the level of agreement between scores in children with IBD is uncertain.

This study examined the concurrent validity of nutrition screening tools within the IBD clinic. Four nutritional screening tools: STAMP(1), STRONGkids(Reference Hulst, Zwart and Hop2), PYMS(Reference Gerasimidis, Keane and Macleod3), Simple Pediatric Nutritional Risk Score (SPNRS)(Reference Sermet-Gaudelus, Poisson-Salomon and Colomb4) were consolidated into one generic assessment from which the scores for each tool were derived. Children with IBD, confirmed by histopathological criteria, attending the regional paediatric gastroenterology service were studied with this generic assessment by a single trained observer. Nutritional risk was determined from each tool. Kappa statistics were used to find the level of agreement between each risk score compared to that expected by chance.

Forty-six children were studied, 24 boys. Median age was 14 years (range 3–17 years). Twenty-seven children had Crohn's, 16 UC and 3 Indeterminate Colitis. PYMS was the only tool to place children at low risk, 23 in total; 1 scored low with PYMS and high with STAMP, 4 scored low with PYMS and high with SPNRS.

Kappa scores to show the level of agreement of nutrition risk scores in 46 children with IBD. A kappa score >0.6 represents a good level of agreement, <0.2 is poor.

There was good agreement between STAMP, STRONGkids and SPRNS; however, no children received a low-risk score with these tools. Children with IBD were automatically scored medium risk, due to their disease, with these three tools. PYMS scored most children at low risk and therefore did not have a good level of agreement with the other scores. The potential clinical application of any of these tools requires further study.

2.Hulst, JM, Zwart, H, Hop, WC et al. (2010) Clin Nutr 29, 106111.
3.Gerasimidis, K, Keane, O, Macleod, I et al. (2010) Br J Nutr 19, 16.
4.Sermet-Gaudelus, I, Poisson-Salomon, AS, Colomb, V et al. (2000) Am J Clin Nutr 72, 6470.