A prospective cross-sectional-comparative analysis of nutrition screening and assessment tools in chinese nasopharyngeal carcinoma inpatients undergoing radiotherapy using Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria as the gold standard.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Ruizhen Wu, Shu Tian, Haodong Wang, Qin Shi, Jianhong Ma
{"title":"A prospective cross-sectional-comparative analysis of nutrition screening and assessment tools in chinese nasopharyngeal carcinoma inpatients undergoing radiotherapy using Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria as the gold standard.","authors":"Ruizhen Wu, Shu Tian, Haodong Wang, Qin Shi, Jianhong Ma","doi":"10.1002/ncp.11282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of four different nutrition screening and evaluation instruments in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients, benchmarked against Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods and study design: </strong>An observational, single-institution study was conducted between June 2022 and May 2023. Nutrition status was assessed using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), and GLIM criteria at two time points: postadmission and predischarge. Metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, concordance, and Kappa coefficient were computed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the trial, 140 participants were enrolled. Based on GLIM criteria, the rate of undernutrition was 22.9% before radiation and 73.6% after it ended. NRS-2002 (k = 0.721) demonstrated substantial concordance with GLIM criteria at admission, followed by MUST (k = 0.604) and MST (k = 0.378). Kappa coefficients were reduced at discharge (NRS-2002: k = 0.696; MUST: k = 0.690; MST: k = 0.496). GLIM criteria were moderately consistent with PG-SGA at admission (k = 0.453) and slightly consistent at discharge (k = 0.136).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>NRS-2002 demonstrated greater concordance with GLIM criteria than MUST and MST. Therefore, NRS-2002 could be a more appropriate choice for initial nutrition screening in the diagnostic framework of GLIM for individuals afflicted with nasopharyngeal cancer, both before and after radiotherapy. The alignment of GLIM criteria with PG-SGA in identifying undernourished patients varied from slight to moderate.</p>","PeriodicalId":19354,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition in Clinical Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition in Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.11282","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of four different nutrition screening and evaluation instruments in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients, benchmarked against Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria.

Methods and study design: An observational, single-institution study was conducted between June 2022 and May 2023. Nutrition status was assessed using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), and GLIM criteria at two time points: postadmission and predischarge. Metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, concordance, and Kappa coefficient were computed.

Results: For the trial, 140 participants were enrolled. Based on GLIM criteria, the rate of undernutrition was 22.9% before radiation and 73.6% after it ended. NRS-2002 (k = 0.721) demonstrated substantial concordance with GLIM criteria at admission, followed by MUST (k = 0.604) and MST (k = 0.378). Kappa coefficients were reduced at discharge (NRS-2002: k = 0.696; MUST: k = 0.690; MST: k = 0.496). GLIM criteria were moderately consistent with PG-SGA at admission (k = 0.453) and slightly consistent at discharge (k = 0.136).

Conclusions: NRS-2002 demonstrated greater concordance with GLIM criteria than MUST and MST. Therefore, NRS-2002 could be a more appropriate choice for initial nutrition screening in the diagnostic framework of GLIM for individuals afflicted with nasopharyngeal cancer, both before and after radiotherapy. The alignment of GLIM criteria with PG-SGA in identifying undernourished patients varied from slight to moderate.

以全球营养不良领导倡议标准为金标准,对中国鼻咽癌放疗住院患者营养筛查和评估工具进行前瞻性横断面比较分析。
目的:目的是评估四种不同的营养筛查和评估工具对鼻咽癌患者的诊断准确性,以全球营养不良领导倡议(GLIM)标准为基准。方法和研究设计:一项观察性单机构研究于2022年6月至2023年5月进行。在入院后和出院前两个时间点,采用营养风险筛查2002 (NRS-2002)、营养不良普遍筛查工具(MUST)、营养不良筛查工具(MST)、患者主观总体评估(PG-SGA)和GLIM标准评估营养状况。计算敏感性、特异性、一致性和Kappa系数等指标。结果:本次试验共纳入140名受试者。根据GLIM标准,放疗前营养不良率为22.9%,放疗结束后为73.6%。NRS-2002 (k = 0.721)在入院时显示与GLIM标准基本一致,其次是MUST (k = 0.604)和MST (k = 0.378)。排放时Kappa系数降低(NRS-2002: k = 0.696;必须:k = 0.690;MST: k = 0.496)。入院时GLIM标准与PG-SGA中度一致(k = 0.453),出院时略有一致(k = 0.136)。结论:NRS-2002比MUST和MST更符合GLIM标准。因此,在鼻咽癌患者放疗前后的GLIM诊断框架中,NRS-2002可能是更合适的初始营养筛查选择。在确定营养不良患者时,GLIM标准与PG-SGA的一致性从轻微到中度不等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
9.70%
发文量
128
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: NCP is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary publication that publishes articles about the scientific basis and clinical application of nutrition and nutrition support. NCP contains comprehensive reviews, clinical research, case observations, and other types of papers written by experts in the field of nutrition and health care practitioners involved in the delivery of specialized nutrition support. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信