Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on January 22, 2009

Stroke. 2009
Published online before print January 22, 2009, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.518910
A more recent version of this article appeared on March 1, 2009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
40/3/e66    most recent
STROKEAHA.108.518910v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Foley, N. C.
Right arrow Articles by Woodbury, M. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Foley, N. C.
Right arrow Articles by Woodbury, M. G.
Related Collections
Right arrow Acute Stroke Syndromes

Submitted on July 2, 2008
Revised on July 18, 2008
Accepted on July 25, 2008

Which Reported Estimate of the Prevalence of Malnutrition After Stroke Is Valid?

Norine C. Foley MSc*; Katherine L. Salter BA; James Robertson MSc; Robert W. Teasell MD; and M. Gail Woodbury PhD

From the Aging, Rehabilitation & Geriatric Care Program, Division of Stroke Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies (N.C.F., K.L.S., R.W.T.), Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada; and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (J.R., M.G.W.), University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: norine.foley{at}sjhc.london.on.ca.

Background and Purpose—The reported prevalence of malnutrition after stroke varies widely, whereas it remains unclear which of the estimates is most accurate. The aim of this review was to explore possible sources of this heterogeneity among studies and to evaluate whether the nutritional assessment techniques used were valid.

Methods—A literature search was conducted to identify all studies in which the nutritional state of patients was assessed after inpatient admission for stroke. The percentages of patients identified as malnourished in each study and method of nutritional assessment are reported. For the purposes of this study, an assessment technique was considered valid if at least one form of validity had been demonstrated previously through psychometric evaluation.

Results—Eighteen studies meeting inclusion criteria were identified. The reported frequency of malnutrition ranged from 6.1% to 62%. Seventeen different methods of nutritional assessment were used. Four trials used previously validated assessment methods: Subjective Global Assessment, "an informal assessment," and Mini Nutritional Assessment. The nutritional assessment methods used in the remaining studies used had not been validated previously.

Conclusions—The use of a wide assortment of nutritional assessment tools, many of which have not been validated, may have contributed to the wide range of estimates of malnutrition. If so, this underscores the need for valid and reliable assessment tools to further our understanding of the relationship between stroke and nutritional status.


Key words: nutritional assessment • nutritional indices • protein–energy malnutrition • stroke • validity