BACKGROUND: The prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients is reported as high as 65%; however, malnutrition screening is often substandard. The Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) has been validated for use by health care professionals to detect at-risk patients; however, there is a gap in the literature regarding validation of patient-led MST screening. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the concurrent validity of patient-led MST against the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and the interrater reliability of patient-led MST against dietitian-led MST in patients attending ambulatory cancer care services for chemotherapy or supportive treatments. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: A single-site diagnostic accuracy study of 201 patients between May and June 2017 attending the ambulatory cancer care setting at an Australian metropolitan tertiary hospital in Queensland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measures were concurrent validity and interrater reliability of MST scores as determined by patients (patient-MST), dietitians (dietitian-MST), and SGA as completed by the dietitian. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Concurrent validity of patient-led MST scores against the SGA was determined using specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. Interrater reliability of patient-MST and dietitian-MST was assessed using κ coefficient. RESULTS: The ability of the patient-led MST scores (0 to 1 vs 2 to 5) to indicate nutrition status was found to have a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI 81% to 99%), a specificity of 86% (95% CI 79% to 91%), and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96). The positive predictive value was 59% (95% CI 45% to 71%), and the negative predictive value was 99% (95% CI 95% to 100%). A weighted κ of 0.83 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.87) between patient-MST and dietitian-MST was found. CONCLUSION: Patient-led MST screening is a reliable and valid measure that can accurately identify ambulatory cancer care patients as at risk or not at risk of malnutrition.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of malnutrition in cancerpatients is reported as high as 65%; however, malnutrition screening is often substandard. The Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) has been validated for use by health care professionals to detect at-risk patients; however, there is a gap in the literature regarding validation of patient-led MST screening. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the concurrent validity of patient-led MST against the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and the interrater reliability of patient-led MST against dietitian-led MST in patients attending ambulatory cancer care services for chemotherapy or supportive treatments. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: A single-site diagnostic accuracy study of 201 patients between May and June 2017 attending the ambulatory cancer care setting at an Australian metropolitan tertiary hospital in Queensland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measures were concurrent validity and interrater reliability of MST scores as determined by patients (patient-MST), dietitians (dietitian-MST), and SGA as completed by the dietitian. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Concurrent validity of patient-led MST scores against the SGA was determined using specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. Interrater reliability of patient-MST and dietitian-MST was assessed using κ coefficient. RESULTS: The ability of the patient-led MST scores (0 to 1 vs 2 to 5) to indicate nutrition status was found to have a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI 81% to 99%), a specificity of 86% (95% CI 79% to 91%), and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96). The positive predictive value was 59% (95% CI 45% to 71%), and the negative predictive value was 99% (95% CI 95% to 100%). A weighted κ of 0.83 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.87) between patient-MST and dietitian-MST was found. CONCLUSION:Patient-led MST screening is a reliable and valid measure that can accurately identify ambulatory cancer care patients as at risk or not at risk of malnutrition.
Authors: Cristina Martins; Simone L Saeki; Marcelo Mazza do Nascimento; Fernando M Lucas Júnior; Ana Maria Vavruk; Christiane L Meireles; Sandra Justino; Denise Mafra; Estela Iraci Rabito; Maria Eliana Madalozzo Schieferdecker; Letícia Fuganti Campos; Denise P J van Aanholt; Ana Adélia Hordonho; Marcia Samia Pinheiro Fidelix Journal: J Bras Nefrol Date: 2021 Apr-Jun
Authors: Marianne Boll Kristensen; Irene Wessel; Anne Marie Beck; Karin B Dieperink; Tina Broby Mikkelsen; Jens-Jakob Kjer Møller; Ann-Dorthe Zwisler Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Chelsia Gillis; Leslee Hasil; Popi Kasvis; Neil Bibby; Sarah J Davies; Carla M Prado; Malcolm A West; Clare Shaw Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2021-06-24