Nutritional Screening Tools Used and Validated for Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify validated nutritional screening tools for cancer patients. The research was conducted in the electronic databases Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde (BVS), using the descriptors "Nutrition Assessment", &qu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nutrition and cancer 2019-08, Vol.71 (6), p.898-907
Main Authors: Mendes, Nélia Pinheiro, Barros, Thalita Alves de, Rosa, Carla de Oliveira Barbosa, Franceschini, Sylvia do Carmo Castro
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cancer
Health and safety screening
Neoplasms
Nutrition
Nutrition assessment
Object recognition
Sensitivity analysis
Systematic review
Validation studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of this systematic review was to identify validated nutritional screening tools for cancer patients. The research was conducted in the electronic databases Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde (BVS), using the descriptors "Nutrition Assessment", "Neoplasms", and "Validation studies". Initially, we identified 168 articles. After assessing eligibility, we included 21 studies. In selected studies, 14 nutritional screening tools were validation objects. The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) showed better sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (98, 82, 95, and 93%, respectively), as well as predictive of overall survival in cancer patients. In many countries, in addition to PG-SGA, the Nutrition Risk Screen (NRS-2002) is recommended for these patients. We did not identify, however, manuscripts that proposed validation. Validation studies of nutritional screening tools should be performed on patients with cancer, using representative samples of these individuals for better reliability of their results.
ISSN:0163-5581
1532-7914
DOI:10.1080/01635581.2019.1595045