2002 年成人癌症患者营养风险筛查:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Pengpeng Wang, Yanmei Tan, Kim Lam Soh, Kim Geok Soh, Chuanyi Ning, Li Xue, Yunhong Lu, Jie Yang
{"title":"2002 年成人癌症患者营养风险筛查:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Pengpeng Wang, Yanmei Tan, Kim Lam Soh, Kim Geok Soh, Chuanyi Ning, Li Xue, Yunhong Lu, Jie Yang","doi":"10.1080/01635581.2024.2352901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is critical to screen and assess malnutrition in cancer patients early. However, there is no uniform standard for nutritional risk screening and malnutrition assessment. We aimed to analyze the effects of the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) in screening for nutritional risk among adult cancer patients, using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) as the reference standard. A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Studies comparing NRS2002 with PG-SGA in adult cancer patients were included. To assess the quality of the included studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used. The combined sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. In addition, sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were performed. Thirteen articles involving 3,373 participants were included. The combined sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC were 0.62 (95% CI, 0.60-0.64), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84-0.88), 11.23 (95% CI, 8.26-15.27), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88), respectively. For adult cancer patients, NRS2002 has moderate sensitivity, high specificity, and high AUC in screening for nutritional risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":54701,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition and Cancer-An International Journal","volume":" ","pages":"573-583"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 for Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Pengpeng Wang, Yanmei Tan, Kim Lam Soh, Kim Geok Soh, Chuanyi Ning, Li Xue, Yunhong Lu, Jie Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01635581.2024.2352901\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>It is critical to screen and assess malnutrition in cancer patients early. However, there is no uniform standard for nutritional risk screening and malnutrition assessment. We aimed to analyze the effects of the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) in screening for nutritional risk among adult cancer patients, using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) as the reference standard. A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Studies comparing NRS2002 with PG-SGA in adult cancer patients were included. To assess the quality of the included studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used. The combined sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. In addition, sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were performed. Thirteen articles involving 3,373 participants were included. The combined sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC were 0.62 (95% CI, 0.60-0.64), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84-0.88), 11.23 (95% CI, 8.26-15.27), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88), respectively. For adult cancer patients, NRS2002 has moderate sensitivity, high specificity, and high AUC in screening for nutritional risk.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54701,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition and Cancer-An International Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"573-583\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition and Cancer-An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2024.2352901\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition and Cancer-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2024.2352901","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

早期筛查和评估癌症患者的营养不良至关重要。然而,营养风险筛查和营养不良评估尚无统一标准。我们的目的是分析营养风险筛查 2002(NRS2002)在成年癌症患者营养风险筛查中的效果,并将患者生成的主观全面评估(PG-SGA)作为参考标准。我们使用 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane 图书馆、中国国家知识基础设施(CNKI)、万方数据库和中国科技期刊数据库(VIP)进行了系统检索。纳入的研究对成人癌症患者进行了 NRS2002 与 PG-SGA 的比较。为评估纳入研究的质量,采用了诊断准确性研究质量评估-2(QUADAS-2)。计算了综合灵敏度、特异性、诊断几率比(DOR)和接收者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)。此外,还进行了灵敏度、亚组和发表偏倚分析。共纳入 13 篇文章,涉及 3,373 名参与者。综合灵敏度、特异性、DOR 和 AUC 分别为 0.62(95% CI,0.60-0.64)、0.86(95% CI,0.84-0.88)、11.23(95% CI,8.26-15.27)和 0.85(95% CI,0.82-0.88)。对于成年癌症患者,NRS2002 在筛查营养风险方面具有中等灵敏度、高特异性和高 AUC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 for Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

It is critical to screen and assess malnutrition in cancer patients early. However, there is no uniform standard for nutritional risk screening and malnutrition assessment. We aimed to analyze the effects of the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) in screening for nutritional risk among adult cancer patients, using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) as the reference standard. A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Studies comparing NRS2002 with PG-SGA in adult cancer patients were included. To assess the quality of the included studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used. The combined sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. In addition, sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were performed. Thirteen articles involving 3,373 participants were included. The combined sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC were 0.62 (95% CI, 0.60-0.64), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84-0.88), 11.23 (95% CI, 8.26-15.27), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88), respectively. For adult cancer patients, NRS2002 has moderate sensitivity, high specificity, and high AUC in screening for nutritional risk.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
172
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: This timely publication reports and reviews current findings on the effects of nutrition on the etiology, therapy, and prevention of cancer. Etiological issues include clinical and experimental research in nutrition, carcinogenesis, epidemiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology. Coverage of therapy focuses on research in clinical nutrition and oncology, dietetics, and bioengineering. Prevention approaches include public health recommendations, preventative medicine, behavior modification, education, functional foods, and agricultural and food production policies.
×
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