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 ca...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nutrition and cancer 2024, Vol.76 (7), p.573-583
Main Authors: Wang, Pengpeng, Tan, Yanmei, Soh, Kim Lam, Soh, Kim Geok, Ning, Chuanyi, Xue, Li, Lu, Yunhong, Yang, Jie
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Cancer
Diagnostic systems
Health risk assessment
Humans
Malnutrition
Malnutrition - diagnosis
Mass Screening - methods
Medical screening
Meta-analysis
Neoplasms
Nutrition
Nutrition Assessment
Nutritional Status
Older people
Quality assessment
Quality control
Risk Assessment - methods
Sensitivity and Specificity
Subgroups
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0163-5581
1532-7914
1532-7914
DOI:10.1080/01635581.2024.2352901