An evaluation of three nutritional screening tools in a Portuguese oncology centre

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2008

Authors

Amaral, TF (Author) FCNAUP; Antunes, A (Author) Other; Cabral, S (Author) Other; Alves, P (Author) Other; Kent Smith, L (Author) Other

Journal

Title: Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics

Vol. 21 No. 6

Pages: 575-583

ISSN: 0952-3871

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 56 Citations

ISI Web of Science

Scopus - 67 Citations

Scientific classification

FOS: Medical and Health sciences > Health sciences

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-003-TJG

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-277x.2008.00917.x

Abstract (EN): Because the choice of the most appropriate nutritional screening tool in cancer patients remains an important issue, the aim of the present study was to compare the screening value of three undernutrition screening tools in cancer patients. In a probabilistic sample of 50% in-patients from an oncology hospital, the screening values of Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) were calculated using the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) as the reference method in identifying nutritionally-at-risk patients. Their ability to predict a high length-of-hospital stay (LOS), defined as >= 7 days, was assessed. A total of 130 patients were assessed. MUST identified the highest proportion of nutritionally-at-risk patients (43.8%), followed by 28.5% using NRS-2002 and 17.7% using MST. They all identified head and neck cancer patients as the most at risk of nutritional problems. The odds of having a longer LOS were higher for MUST estimates [odds ratio (OR) = 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.50-7.00] than for NRS-2002 (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.05-5.80). MUST had the highest agreement with NRS-2002 in hospitalized cancer patients and better identified patients at-risk for a longer LOS.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 9