Clinical Nutrition 29 (2010) 106111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Clinical Nutrition
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/clnu

Original Article

Dutch national survey to test the STRONGkids nutritional risk screening tool in
hospitalized childrenq
Jessie M. Hulst a, *, Henrike Zwart a, Wim C. Hop b, Koen F.M. Joosten a
a
b

Erasmus MC, Department of Pediatrics, Sophias Children Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Erasmus MC, Department of Biostatistics, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

s u m m a r y

Article history:
Received 4 February 2009
Accepted 21 July 2009

Background & aims: Children admitted to the hospital are at risk of developing malnutrition. The aim of
the present study was to investigate the feasibility and value of a new nutritional risk screening tool,
called STRONGkids, in a nationwide study.
Methods: A Prospective observational multi-centre study was performed in 44 Dutch hospitals
(7 academic and 37 general), over three consecutive days during the month of November 2007.The
STRONGkids screening tool consisted of 4 items: (1) subjective clinical assessment, (2) high risk disease,
(3) nutritional intake, (4) weight loss. Measurements of weight and length were performed. SD-scores
<2 for weight-for-height and height-for-age were considered to indicate acute and chronic malnutrition respectively.
Results: A total of 424 children were included. Median age was 3.5 years and median hospital stay was 2
days. Sixty-two percent of the children were classied at risk of developing malnutrition by the
STRONGkids tool. Children at risk had signicantly lower SD-scores for weight-for-height, a higher
prevalence of acute malnutrition and a longer hospital stay compared to children with no nutritional risk.
Conclusions: The nutritional risk screening tool STRONGkids was successfully applied to 98% of the children. Using this tool, a signicant relationship was found between having a high risk score, a negative
SD-score in weight-for-height and a prolonged hospital stay.
2009 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Malnutrition
Risk group
Screening tool
Hospitalized children
National study

1. Introduction
Children who are admitted to the hospital are at a high risk of
developing malnutrition, especially children with an underlying
disease.1,2 High percentages of both acute and chronic malnutrition
have been reported in different countries.1
In a tertiary hospital in France, Sermet-Gaudelus et al. (2000)
found 62% of children had lost weight during their hospital stay.3 It
is widely known that poor nutritional status has negative consequences for the child, underlining the importance to careful
monitor. In two recent studies it was shown that both acute and
chronic malnutrition affect the cognitive development of schoolNon-standard abbreviations: SD scores, standard deviation scores; WFH, weightfor-height; HFA, height-for-age; STRONGkids, Screening Tool Risk on Nutritional
status and Growth.
q Conference presentation: Conference of Dutch Society of Pediatrics, Veldhoven,
The Netherlands, November 6th 2008.
* Corresponding author at. Department of Pediatrics, Room Sp 3462, Dr. Molewaterplein 60, 3015 GJ Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: 31 107040704; fax: 31
107036811.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Hulst).

aged children.4,5 Furthermore, poor weight gain in children with

congenital heart defects, in the rst months after surgery, was
strongly related to later mortality.6
To prevent malnutrition, and especially hospital-acquired
malnutrition along with its complications, early identication of
nutritional depletion is essential, ideally on admission to the
hospital. Such an approach provides the physician with the
opportunity to apply appropriate nutritional interventions, in the
hope of preventing complications. Currently, there is no consensus
to the best method of assessing nutritional risk of children
admitted to the hospital.
Three groups have attempted to develop such a nutritional risk
screening tool for children. Sermet-Gaudelus et al.3 developed the
pediatric nutritional risk score and Secker and Jeejeebhoy7 the
subjective global nutritional assessment (SGNA) tool. Both these
tools identify children at risk of malnutrition during hospitalization. However, we have found these tools to be complicated and
time-consuming and consequently their uptake has been limited.
Recently, McCarthy et al.8 developed the STAMP tool, a combination of measurements of weight and height and two additional
questions on disease risk and intake. We found this tool also

0261-5614/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2009.07.006

J.M. Hulst et al. / Clinical Nutrition 29 (2010) 106111

complex to use and more of a nutritional assessment than a nutritional risk tool. There are no reports published using either of these
scoring systems. We therefore attempted to develop an easy to
apply nutritional risk screening tool, called STRONGkids, in an effort
to overcome some of the issues with previous tools. Our tool
consists of four areas (1) subjective global assessment (2) high risk
disease (3) nutritional intake and losses (4) weight loss or poor
weight increase. The aim of our study was to investigate the
feasibility and value of this new nutritional risk screening tool on
children admitted to hospitals in the Netherlands over three
consecutive days.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Subjects
Every Dutch hospital (n 101) containing a pediatric ward was
invited to participate (by letter), on a voluntary basis. This included
93 general and 8 academic hospitals. Our three screening days took
place from November 26th through November 28th 2007. Our
inclusion criteria were, age>1 month, admission to a pediatric ward
(intensive are patients excluded) and an expected stay of at least
one day. The institutional review board of Erasmus Medical Centre
approved the study protocol, and waived the need for informed
consent from each parent, because of the standard nature of the
measurements in this protocol. Parents or caregivers were
informed by a letter approved by the institutional review board and
could refrain from participation without consequences.
All children had their age, sex, diagnosis and length of hospital
stay recorded. Race was classied as Caucasian or non-Caucasian.
Children were classied as surgical or non-surgical, and suffering
from an underlying disease or not. The reasons for admission were
classied as respiratory, trauma, infectious, surgical, oncological,
gastro-intestinal, cardiac, neurological and others.

107

The rst 2 items were assessed by a pediatrician and the

second 2 items were discussed with the parents or caregivers. Questions answered with unclear were classied as
no.

2.2.2. Item B: Anthropometric measurements

On admission, and also at discharge, weight measurements
were taken. Supine length or standing height was assessed on
admission only. All measurements were carried out in a standardized way, using standard equipment (digital scales, stadiometer)
which was explained to the participating hospitals beforehand.9
The measurements were performed by the nursing staff or
attending physicians. All anthropometric data was compared with
published standards based on a Dutch reference population and
translated into standard deviation scores (SD scores).10 This resulted in SD scores for weight-for-height (WFH) and height-for-age
(HFA). A SD score of <2 for WFH was used to indicate acute
malnutrition, and an SD score of <2 for HFA was used to indicate
chronic malnutrition.11 Overall malnutrition rate was dened as the
presence of acute and/or chronic malnutrition.
2.2.3. Statistical analysis
Descriptive analyses were used to describe the study population
and the feasibility of performing the risk assessment and the
measurements. Chi2-tests were used to compare percentages
between groups. Comparison of continuous data between groups
was carried out using the T-test, MannWhitney test or Kruskall
Wallis test.
The malnutrition risk score (scale 05) was compared with the
actual nutritional status on admission expressed as WFH SD-score.
Multiple regression analysis of various clinical measures such as
the length of stay (LOS) was carried out. LOS was converted logarithmically in this analysis to reduce the inuence of outlying
observations. We considered p (two-sided) <0.05 to be signicant.

2.2. Assessment of nutritional status and nutritional risk factors

3. Results
The research protocol consisted of the following items.
2.2.1. Item A: nutritional risk screening tool STRONGkids (Screening
Tool for Risk on Nutritional status and Growth)
On admission a questionnaire to score the risk for malnutrition
was performed. This nutritional risk screening questionnaire consisted of 4 items and each item was allocated a score of 12 points
with a maximum total score of 5 points;
(1) Subjective clinical assessment (1 point).
Is the patient in a poor nutritional status judged by subjective
clinical assessment (diminished subcutaneous fat and/or
muscle mass and/or hollow face)?
(2) High risk disease (2 points).
Is there an underlying illness with a risk of malnutrition or
expected major surgery (Table 1)?
(3) Nutritional intake and losses (1 point).
Are one of the following items present?
Excessive diarrhoea (5 per day) and/or vomiting (>3 times/
day) the last few days?
Reduced food intake during the last few days before admission (not including fasting for an elective procedure or
surgery)?
Pre-existing dietetically advised nutritional intervention?
Inability to consume adequate intake because of pain?
(4) Weight loss or poor weight gain? (1 point)
Is there weight loss or no weight gain (infants <1 year)
during the last few weeks/months?

The overall hospital response rate was 52% (52 hospitals, 7

academic and 45 general). Of this four of the 45 general hospitals
did not include any patients and 4 failed to return their case record
forms. Finally 44 hospitals participated (7 academic and 37
general). A total of 424 children met the inclusion criteria (172 from

Table 1
Overview of the item high risk disease of the screening tool.
High risk disease
Anorexia nervosa
Burns
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (maximum age 2 years)
Celiac disease
Cystic brosis
Dysmaturity/prematurity (corrected age 6 months)
Cardiac disease, chronic
Infectious disease (AIDS)
Inammatory bowel disease
Cancer
Liver disease, chronic
Kidney disease, chronic
Pancreatitis
Short bowel syndrome
Muscle disease
Metabolic disease
Trauma
Mental handicap/retardation
Expected major surgery
Not specied (classied by doctor)

108

J.M. Hulst et al. / Clinical Nutrition 29 (2010) 106111

.5

the academic and 252 from the general hospitals). Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 2. The median age was 3.5 years
(range 31 days17.7 years) and the median length of hospital stay
was 2 days (range 144 days). Twenty-four percent of the children
were admitted for>4 days. Surgery was the reason for admission
for 23% of the children. Overall 29% of the admitted children
suffered from an underlying disease with a signicant difference
between the academic and general hospital population (51% vs. 15%
respectively, p < 0.001).

S D S WF H

0.0

3.1. Anthropometric measurements

Weight and height measurements on admission were available
in 99% and 92% of children respectively (height measurements
were not available in 8% of the children because of logistic reasons,
i.e. they were too sick to measure or had severe psychomotor or
neuromuscular disorders). The mean SD-score for WFH (0.22 SD)
and HFA (0.15 SD) was signicantly below zero (p 0.04 and
p 0.035, respectively). The percentage of children with acute
malnutrition was 11% (95% CI: 815%) and with chronic malnutrition was 9% (95% CI: 612%). Overall the prevalence of malnutrition
on admission was 19% (95% CI: 1523%).
3.2. Nutritional risk screening tool STRONGkids
The nutritional risk screening tool STRONGkids was used to
assess risk in 98% of the children. The four items of the questionnaire, i.e. subjective clinical assessment, high risk disease,
nutritional losses and weight loss or poor weight gain scored
with presence yes in 10%, 28%, 48% and 15% respectively. In the
group of children in which the subjective clinical assessment item
was scored positively, 49% were found to have a SD-score <2 for
WFH of HFA. There was a signicant difference in scoring between
academic and general hospitals for high risk disease (46% and 15%
respectively, p < 0.001) and nutritional losses (36% and 57%
respectively, p < 0.001).
3.3. Malnutrition risk score
Fig. 1 depicts that when the risk scores increase the WFH SDscores decrease. It shows that risk scores from 1 to 3 have similar
mean SD-scores for WFH (difference p 0.84). These scores were
therefore combined under the category moderate risk. Furthermore,
the risk scores 4 and 5 have comparable mean SD-scores for WFH
Table 2
Patient characteristics and diagnoses (n 424) according to type of hospital.
Patient characteristics

Total n 424 Academic n 172

Sex, m:v (%)

Age (yr), Median (range)

63:37
3.5 (31 d
17.7 years)
2 (144)

51b

15

Diagnostic groups (%)

Infectious
Surgical
Gastro-intestinal
Respiratory
Cardiac
Trauma
Oncologic
Neurological
Other

9
37
17
5
9
1
9
5
8

47
13
15
7
1
6
0
2
9

a
b

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0
N=

148

103

59

42

15

15

Risk score
Fig. 1. Relationship between nutritional risk scores (STRONGkids) and mean SD-scores
for WFH. All values expressed as mean  SEM. SDS WFH SD-score for weight-forheight. With increasing risk scores the SD-scores for WFH decreased (rs 0.25,
p < 0.001). Risk scores 1 through 3 have similar mean WFH SD-scores (difference
p 0.84) and were combined into the category moderate risk. Risk scores 4 and 5 have
comparable mean WFH SD-scores (difference p 0.60) and were combined into the
category high risk. Mean SD-scores are signicantly different among the 3 risk categories (p < 0.05 for all comparisons).

(difference p 0.60), so these scores were combined under the

category high risk. Mean SD-scores are signicantly different
between risk categories.
3.4. Risk categories
Overall, 38% of the children were categorized as low risk, 54% as
moderate risk and 8% as high risk. The distribution of risk categories
between academic and general hospitals were signicantly
different, i.e. in the academic hospitals 15% of the children were
classied as high risk whereas this was only 5% in the general
hospitals (p 0.014 for low vs. high risk and p < 0.001 for moderate
vs. high risk).
Differences in several characteristics and outcome variables
between the different risk categories are shown in Table 3. There
was an increase in the percentage of children with acute malnutrition on admission from the low risk, to moderate risk and to high
risk groups, 5%, 14% and 27% respectively (p 0.004 for low vs.

General n 252

62:38
64:36
5.7a (39 d17.7 years) 2.2 (31 d
17.6 years)
2 (133)
2 (144)

Length of hospital
stay (days), Median (range)
Underlying disease (%)
29
32
23
16
6
4
4
4
3
8

-.5

signicant difference compared to general hospitals (p 0.001).

signicant difference compared to general hospitals (p < 0.001).

Table 3
Differences between risk groups.

SD weight-for-height (mean)a,b,c
SD height-for-age (mean)b,c
Acute malnutritiona,b
Chronic malnutritionb,c
Malnutritionb,c
Academicb,c
Underlying diseasea,b,c
Surgicala,b
Age (median, years)a,c
Length of stay (median, days)a,b
a
b
c
d

Low risk
(n 160)

Moderate risk
(n 223)

High risk
(n 34)

0.21
0.11
5%
8%
12%
44%
5%
43%
4.3
2 (2.5)d

0.40
0.04
14%
6%
19%
35%
36%
12%
2.3
3 (4.6)d

1.15
1.05
27%
28%
47%
68%
97%
3%
8.7
3 (6.0)d

Signicant difference between low risk and moderate risk group.

Signicant difference between low risk and high risk group.
Signicant difference between moderate risk and high risk group.
Mean length of stay is shown between parentheses.

J.M. Hulst et al. / Clinical Nutrition 29 (2010) 106111

moderate risk, p < 0.001 for low vs. high risk, and p 0.1 for
moderate vs. high risk). Furthermore, the prevalence of overall
malnutrition in the high risk group (47%) was signicantly higher
when compared to the percentage of malnutrition in the moderate
(19%) and low (12%) risk groups (both p < 0.001).
The percentage of children with underlying disease was significantly different among the 3 risk categories (5%, 36% and 97% of the
children in the low, moderate and high risk groups respectively). In
95% of the children who scored yes for the item high risk disease
an underlying disease was present. The gender distribution was
similar in the 3 risk groups.
3.5. Length of hospital stay
The length of hospital stay (LOS) of children with a low risk score
was signicantly shorter compared to children with a moderate or
high risk score, median 2 vs. 3 days respectively (p < 0.001).
Univariate analysis revealed that an increase in the nutritional risk
category, younger age, presence of an underlying disease, nonsurgical reason of admission and non-Caucasian ethnicity were all
signicantly related to a longer LOS. After adjusting for all these
clinical risk factors, multivariate analysis demonstrated that the
difference in LOS between nutritional lower vs. higher risk categories remained signicant (p 0.017).
3.6. Discharge data
Of the 103 children who were admitted to hospital for>4 days
the median length of stay was 8 days (range 544). Data for both
weight and height at discharge were available for 62 of the 103
children (60%). Within this group 65% of the children lost no weight
or gained weight, and 35% lost weight. Only 3% had a weight loss
more than 5% during this admission. Children in the high risk group
had a signicantly greater increase in WFH SD-score between
admission and discharge compared with the moderate and low risk
groups (0.36 SD, 0.00 SD, and 0.004 SD respectively,
p < 0.001).
4. Discussion
This is the rst study in which a nutritional risk screening tool,
called STRONGkids, was used in a nationwide setting. The
STRONGkids tool is a comprehensive summary of commonly asked
questions concerning nutritional issues, combined with a clinical
view of the childs status. It is performed on admission to the
hospital and it will help to raise the clinicians awareness of
nutritional risks. In this study almost half of all Dutch hospitals
(both academic and general) participated and the STRONGkids was
used in 98% of the children admitted to these hospitals. The prevalence of malnutrition based on the weight and length measurements was 19%, whilst STRONGkids predicted that 54% of the
children were at moderate risk and 8% were at high risk of developing malnutrition. Children at moderate or high nutritional risk
had signicantly lower SD scores for weight-for-height, a higher
prevalence of acute malnutrition (WFH <2 SD) and a longer
hospital stay compared to children with low nutritional risk.
Compared with previously described nutritional risk screening
methods such as Sermet-Gaudelus et al. (France) and Secker and
Jeejeebhoy (Canada), it appears that STRONGkids is more practical
and simple.3,7 We feel that its simplicity and practicality have been
demonstrated in that it can be carried out directly on admission,
can be carried out by one assessor and the nutritional risk is
immediately determinable. This makes the tool less time
consuming. Contrarily the tool of Sermet-Gaudelus et al. requires
a period of 48 h after admission in order to complete the nutritional

109

risk score. This time is needed because nutritional intake is recorded during the rst 48 h after admission. The subjective global
nutritional assessment in the study of Secker and Jeejeebhoy is also
rather complex because a number of additional questions concerning the history of the child have to be completed. Although
both of these methods have advantages it is well known that
a time-consuming screening tool is less likely to be taken up by
health care providers. Furthermore with these methods skilled staff
was necessary whereas for STRONGkids written instructions alone
enabled the participating paediatricians to complete the questionnaires appropriately in 98% of the cases.
Using both previously described screening tools three risk
groups were dened and outcome parameters correlated with the
risk classication. In the rst study3 a higher risk was associated
with more weight loss during admission whereas in the second
study7 a higher risk score was related to a longer hospital stay and
a higher infection rate. With the recently described STAMP tool,
(which combines 2 questions along with weight and height
measurements) three risk groups were also dened but so far these
have not been related to outcome parameters.8 Furthermore the
use of weight and height measurements is suggestive of an
assessment rather than a nutritional risk screening tool.
In our study, we were able to classify three risk groups from the
overall risk score based on anthropometric differences. We
showed that children in the moderate and high risk groups had
signicantly lower median SD-scores for WFH on admission. The
differences we found in SD-scores for WFH between the risk
groups were comparable with those found in the study of Secker
and Jeejeebhoy.
In contrast to the French study,3 we observed no relationship
between risk score and weight loss during hospital admission. In
our group of children with a length of stay of >4 days, those with
the highest risk score showed the greatest weight gain. Overall in
only 3% of the children a weight loss >5% was measured during
admission. An explanation for this difference might be the fact that
in our study only a quarter of the children were admitted for >4
days whereas in the study of Sermet-Gaudelus et al. all patients
were followed. Furthermore, the children in the French study
stayed longer in the hospital and were of a younger age.
In our study nearly all children in the highest risk group had an
underlying disease. Most of the children with an underlying
disease were admitted to an academic hospital, which explains
the higher percentage of children with a high nutritional risk in
these hospitals compared to the general hospitals. Previous
studies have also demonstrated a high prevalence of malnutrition
in children with an underlying disease.2,1215 This suggests that for
this specic group of children extra attention should always be
given to their nutritional status on admission and interventions
should be planned.
We feel that the strength of this study relates to a couple of
facts; 1. is that we were able to perform a nationwide study, performed on a voluntary basis; 2. this screening tool STRONGkids was
successfully carried out in 98% of the children included; and 3. that
both academic and general hospitals participated, thus indicating
that a representative group of children was included.
A weakness of this study is the fact that the screening tool was
performed by many different observers, possibly inuencing the
results. However we had provided the same written instruction to
all participating pediatricians on the screening tool prior. There was
also a debate about the value of the item subjective clinical
assessment. So far only one study in children compared clinical
examination with anthropometry.16 In this study, in a group of 44
children agreement was found between the anthropometry and the
nutritional classication [in 64% of the observations].16 Furthermore, in the study of Secker and Jeejeebhoy part of the screening

110

J.M. Hulst et al. / Clinical Nutrition 29 (2010) 106111

tool included a nutrition-related physical examination, looking at

specic signs of fat and muscle wasting, as well as edema. In our
study we did not include an objective assessment but all observations were carried out by skilled pediatricians which might give
more reliable results. We included the subjective clinical assessment item because we felt that a nutritional risk screening tool
should contain an item that incorporates the clinical condition of
the child. Alternatively a measurement such as arm circumference
or skinfold thickness could be added to the tool. However this then
moves the tool from a risk assessment to a nutritional assessment,
which we feel is the next step after screening for risk. This is
a commonly confused aspect in practice where assessment is mixed
with risk, whilst the purpose of our study was to screen nutritional
risk only and not to assess the status of the child.
Another limitation of our study is the lack of measuring the
consistency of the items, i.e. the interrater variability. This should
be performed in future studies. Our study was not designed as
a validation study and therefore nothing can be concluded about
the sensitivity or specicity of the STRONGkids tool. We believe,
however, that the question remains as to what method should be
used to validate a nutritional risk screening tool. Future studies
should consider length of hospital stay and items concerning
morbidity (i.e. complication rate, secondary infections, antibiotic
use and time between hospital admission as well as time to
complete recovery at home) as outcome parameters. These items
might be more reliable than weight loss during admission (as many
children do not lose weight) or nutritional status upon admission.
In order to thoroughly investigate these relationships a much larger
study population is needed. However, we would encourage the use
of STRONGkids as a practical awareness tool until further studies are
performed in this area.
In conclusion, we believe that the nutritional risk screening tool
STRONGkids will help raise clinicians awareness of the importance
of nutritional status in children. It directs the clinician to consider
important issues related to nutritional risk including the clinical
appearance of the child, the disease risk, nutritional losses, inadequate intake and weight trajectory. Furthermore, the use of this
screening tool can ensure early identication of those children at
nutritional risk and therefore ensure nutritional interventions that
may contribute to overall improvements in our patients care.
Concerning the therapeutic consequences of the STRONGkids
screening tool, we propose a nutritional follow-up according to the
risk category, which is displayed in Table 4. Children classied in
the moderate risk group should receive a critical look at their
nutritional intake and follow-up weight measurements are indicated at least twice per week with a re-evaluation of their risk after
one week. For all children in the high risk category, a consultation
with a dietician is warranted immediately after admission in order
to make an adequate and individualized nutritional plan.

Table 4
Nutritional risk score and recommendations for nutritional intervention.
Score

Risk for malnutrition and need for intervention

Risk

Intervention and follow-up

45 Points

High risk

Consult doctor and dietician for full diagnosis

and individual nutritional advice and follow-up.
Start prescribing sip feeds until further diagnosis.

13 Points

Medium risk

Consult doctor for full diagnosis; consider nutritional

intervention with dietician.
Check weight twice a week and evaluate the
nutritional risk after one week.

0 Points

Low risk

No intervention necessary.
Check weight regularly conform hospital policy and
evaluate the nutritional risk after one week.

Conict of interest
No conicts of Interests declared by all authors.
Statement of authorship
JH and KJ proposed the study, and participated in its design and
coordination as well as drafted the manuscript. HZ carried out the
studies and helped to analyze the data and helped to draft the
manuscript. WH performed the statistical analysis and interpretation of data together with JH and helped to draft the manuscript. All
authors read and approved the nal manuscript.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks goes to all the participating children and their
parents for their cooperation, as well to all the participating
hospitals, their contact persons and the nursing and medical staff
for performing the measurements and questionnaire and to the
seven students who were prepared to go to all academic hospitals
to assist the coordinating physicians and collect the forms. We also
thank Nutricia Nederland BV (Zoetermeer, the Netherlands) for
their nancial support. Nutricia played no role in the study design,
in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, nor in the
writing of the manuscript and in the decision to submit the
manuscript for publication.
The participating hospitals and coordinating physicians were:
VU medical centre, Amsterdam M van der Kuip and S van der
Schoor; Emma Childrens Hospital AMC, Amsterdam C Jonkers
and A Kindermann; University Medical Centre Groningen, Beatrix
Childrens Hospital, Groningen HA Koetse; Leiden University
Medical Centre, Leiden J Schweizer; University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht K Klucovska and E van Heurn; Wilhelmina
Childrens Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht G Visser;
Medical Centre Alkmaar, Alkmaar EK George; Flevo hospital,
Almere JM Deckers Kocken; Meander Medical centre, Amersfoort R Nuboer and NL Ramakers van Woerden; Slotervaart
Hospital, Amsterdam JHM Budde; Gelre Hospital, Apeldoorn
MH Rovekamp; Wilhelmina Hospital, Assen Y Bult and G Gonera;, Amphia Hospital, Breda SA de Man and R van Beek;
IJsselland Hospital, Capelle a/d IJssel HAA Damen, M Steijn and I
Onvlee; Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft MW Hekkelaan
Wesselink and JO Wishaupt; St. Gemini Hospital, Den Helder-SE
Barten;, Slingeland Hospital, Doetinchem MWM Eling; Albert
Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht ED de Kleijn; Catharina Hospital,
Eindhoven T Hendriks; Oosterschelde Hospital, Goes EJA
Gerritsen and L Gerling; Beatrix Hospital, Gorinchem WAR
Huijbers and M Evera-Preesman; HAGA hospital, Juliana Childrens Hospital, The Hague RH Lopes Cardozo; Hospital St. Jansdal,
Harderwijk KJ Oosterhuis and J Hagendoorn; Hospital De Tjongerschans, Heerenveen SM van Dorth; Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond WEA Bolz and HGF Brouwer; Jeroen Bosch Hospital, s
Hertogenbosch JH Hoekstra and E de Vries; Bethesda Hospital,
Hoogeveen AJ Stege; Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden
J Uitentuis; IJsselmeer Hospitals, Lelystad WB Hofstra and H.
Vogt; Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen BA Semmekrot
and R Verlaak; Hospital Bernhoven, Oss MJ Louwers; Maasland
Hospital, Sittard AC Engelberts; Ruwaard van Putten Hospital,
Spijkenisse D Birnie and M Vielvooye;, Zorgsaam Hospital de
Honte, Terneuzen UI Frankel;, Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg JW
Bonenkamp; Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht WJ de Waal; Mesos
Medical Centre loc. Oudenrijn, Utrecht HE Blokland-Loggers;
Hospital Bernhoven, Veghel AE Sluiter and W vd Broek; St. JansGasthuis, Weert EM Kerkvliet and C Oud; St. Lucas Hospital,
Winschoten B Auffarth-Smedema; Lange Land Hospital,

J.M. Hulst et al. / Clinical Nutrition 29 (2010) 106111

Zoetermeer JCD Brevoord; Gelre Hospitals, Zutphen HFH Thijs;

Princess Amalia Childrens Clinic, Isala Clinic, Zwolle A Molendijk and J Bekhof.
The participating students were N Kruijer, P Kramer, C Alingh, A
Kerver, S vd Oord, H Zwart, and W Roest.
References
1. Joosten KFM, Hulst JM. Prevalence of malnutrition in pediatric hospital patients.
Curr Opin Pediatr 2008;20:5906.
2. Pawellek I, Dokoupil K, Koletzko B. Prevalence of malnutrition in paediatric
hospital patients. Clin Nutr 2008;27:726.
3. Sermet-Gaudelus I, Poisson-Salomon AS, Colomb V, Brusset MC, Mosser F,
Berrier F, et al. Simple pediatric nutritional risk score to identify children at risk
of malnutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;72:6470.
4. Emond AM, Blair PS, Emmett PM, Drewett RF. Weight faltering in infancy and IQ
levels at 8 years in the Avon longitudinal study of parents and children. Pediatrics 2007;120:e10518.
5. Kar BR, Rao SL, Chandramouli BA. Cognitive development in children with
chronic protein energy malnutrition. Behav Brain Funct 2008;4:31.
6. Eskedal LT, Hagemo PS, Seem E, Eskild A, Cvancarova M, Seiler S, et al. Impaired
weight gain predicts risk of late death after surgery for congenital heart defects.
Arch Dis Child 2008;93:495501.

111

7. Secker DJ, Jeejeebhoy KN. Subjective global nutritional assessment for children.
Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:10839.
8. McCarthy H, McNulty H, Dixon M, Eaton-Evans MJ. Screening for nutrition risk
in children: the validation of a new tool. J Hum Nutr Diet 2008;21:3956.
9. Gerver W, De Bruin R. Paediatric morphometrics: a reference manual. Utrecht:
Bunge; 1996.
10. Fredriks AM, van Buuren S, Burgmeijer RJ, Meulmeester JF, Beuker RJ,
Brugman E, et al. Continuing positive secular growth change in The Netherlands
19551997. Pediatr Res 2000;47:31623.
11. WHO. Management of severe malnutrition: a manual for physicians and other
senior health workers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1999.
12. Cameron JW, Rosenthal A, Olson AD. Malnutrition in hospitalized children with
congenital heart disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995;149:1098102.
13. den Broeder E, Lippens RJ, vant Hof MA, Tolboom JJ, Sengers RC, van
Staveren WA. Association between the change in nutritional status in response
to tube feeding and the occurrence of infections in children with a solid tumor.
Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2000;17:56775.
14. Hendricks KM, Duggan C, Gallagher L, Carlin AC, Richardson DS, Collier SB, et al.
Malnutrition in hospitalized pediatric patients. Current prevalence. Arch Pediatr
Adolesc Med 1995;149:111822.
15. Sylvestre LC, Fonseca KP, Stinghen AE, Pereira AM, Meneses RP, Pecoits-Filho R.
The malnutrition and inammation axis in pediatric patients with chronic
kidney disease. Pediatr Nephrol 2007;22:86473.
16. Cross JH, Holden C, MacDonald A, Peramain G, Stevens MC, Booth IW. Clinical
examination compared with anthropometry in evaluating nutritional status.
Arch Dis Child 1995;72:601.