Rationale: Inadequate operationalisation of the multidimensial concept of malnutrition may result in inadequate evaluation of nutritional status. In this review we aimed to assess content validity of methods used to assess malnutrition in cancer patients, according to domains directly derived from European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) definitions for malnutrition. Methods: Studies on malnutrition in adult cancer patients published between 1999 and 2013 were considered eligible. Methods to assess malnutrition were classified using 13 indicators within three domains that the malnutrition definitions of ESPEN and ASPEN have in common: A) Nutrient balance; B) Changes in body shape, body area and body composition; and C) Body function.Content validity index per method (M-CVIA-C) was calculated by averaging indicator scores weighted per domain, quantifying to what extent the methods covered the construct of malnutrition. Acceptable content validity was defined as M-CVIA-C ≥0.80.Results: 40 Different methods within 166 articles were identified. Median M-CVIA-C was 0.22 (interquartile range: 0.08-0.53). None of the methods reached M-CVIA-C=0.80. Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA; M-CVIA-C=0.75), Nutritional Screening Questionnaire (NSQ; M-CVIA-C=0.56) and Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA; M-CVIA-C=0.53) were responsible for the top 25% of M-CVIA-C scores. Conclusion: Content validity of methods that assess malnutrition in cancer patients varies widely and is unacceptable in terms of M-CVIA-C. MNA, NSQ and PG-SGA showed highest scores in terms of content validity. Conflict of interest: None.
Lectorale rede in het kader van de lectorinstallatie van dr. Harriët Jager-Wittenaar op 15 januari 2015 aan de Hanzehogeschool Groningen
Background and aims: Malnutrition screening is a first step in the nutrition care process for hospitalized patients, to identify those at risk of malnutrition and associated worse outcome, preceding further assessment and intervention. Frequently used malnutrition screening tools including the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) mainly screen for characteristics of malnutrition, while the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form (PG-SGA SF) additionally includes risk factors for development of malnutrition, yielding a higher percentage of patients at risk. To investigate whether this translates into higher risk of worse outcome, we aimed to determine the predictive validity of MUST and PG-SGA SF for prolonged hospitalization >8 days, readmission, and mortality <6 months after hospital discharge.Methods: In this observational study, MUST was performed according to university hospital protocol. Additional screening using PG-SGA SF was performed within 24 h of hospital admission (high risk: MUST ≥ 2, PG_SGA SF ≥ 9). Associations of MUST and PG-SGA SF with outcomes were analyzed by logistic- and Cox PH-regression.Results: Of 430 patients analyzed (age 58 ± 16 years, 53% male, BMI 26.9 ± 5.5 kg/m2), MUST and PG-SGA SF identified 32 and 80 at high risk, respectively. One-hundred-eight patients had prolonged hospitalization, 109 were readmitted and 20 died. High risk by MUST was associated with mortality (HR = 3.9; 95% CI 1.3–12.2, P = 0.02), but not with other endpoints. High risk by PG-SGA SF was associated with prolonged hospitalization (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 1.3–5.0, P = 0.009), readmission (HR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.1–3.2, P = 0.03), and mortality (HR = 34.8; 95% CI 4.2–289.3, P = 0.001), independent of age, sex, hospital ward and previous hospitalization <6 months. In the 363/430 patients classified as low risk by MUST, high risk by PG-SGA SF was independently associated with higher risk of readmission (HR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.0–3.5, P = 0.04) and mortality (HR = 19.5; 95% CI 2.0–189.4, P = 0.01).Conclusions: Whereas high malnutrition risk by MUST was only associated with mortality, PG-SGA SF was associated with higher risk of prolonged hospitalization, readmission, and mortality. In patients considered as low risk by MUST, high malnutrition risk by PG-SGA SF was also predictive of worse outcome. Our findings support the use of PG-SGA SF in routine care to identify patients at risk of malnutrition and worse outcome, and enable proactive interventions.
