Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by FRIEDMAN, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by CARADOC-DAVIES, T. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by FRIEDMAN, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by CARADOC-DAVIES, T. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1985 Oxford University Press

research-article

PROSPECTIVE TRIAL OF A NEW DIAGNOSTIC CRITERION FOR SEVERE WASTING MALNUTRITION IN THE ELDERLY

PAUL J. FRIEDMAN, Registrar*, A. JOHN CAMPBELL, Professor of Geriatric Medicine and TUDOR H. CARADOC-DAVIES, Clinical Lecturer

Department of Medicine, University of Otago Medical School P.O Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand

*Address correspondence to Dr Friedman. Reprints will be available from Professor Campbell.

From an international comparison of arm anthropometric reference norms for the elderly a new diagnostic criterion for severe wasting malnutrition was derived: corrected arm muscle area at or below 16.0 cm2 for men or 16.9 cm2 for women. Of 201 consecutive hospital admissions aged 65 years and over, 10 subjects were malnourished according to this criterion. For each sex the malnourished group had lower weight, arm circumference and arm muscle area than the nonmalnourished group. Progressive decline of arm muscle mass during the study period was common in the malnourished groups. The diagnosis of severe wasting malnutrition had prognostic implications. Malnourished subjects had a much higher 90-day mortality than the 191 nonmalnourished subjects (50% versus 16.2%).

accepted in revised form October 1, 1984.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.