Screening for Malnutrition Risk in Cancer Outpatients Using an Abridged PG-SGA

Robinson, Jennifer L.; Darling, Pauline B.; Scaffidi, D.

doi:10.1016/j.jada.2008.06.372

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings should be interpreted with caution since the SGA classification depended only on patients` report without any clinical investigations. However, abridged version of SGA is used in other studies and has demonstrated sensitivity and specificity comparable to the fulllength questionnaire [52][53][54][55] . A study on patients on hemodialysis indicated even that using only the nutrition impact symptoms score from the scored version of the questionnaire (patientgenerated SGA (PG-SGA)) had discriminatory capacity comparable to that of a full PG-SGA score for identifying malnutrition risk in malnourished patients receiving hemodialysis 56 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of nutritional status, physical function, comorbidity and early versus late start in dialysis on quality of life in older dialysis patients

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of nutritional status, physical function, comorbidity and early versus late start in dialysis on quality of life in older dialysis patients

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the AUC of abPG-SGA = 0.956 that slightly lower than PG-SGA ( 97% sensitivity, 86% specificity, AUC = 0. 967) and higher than MST ( 81% sensitivity, 72% specificity, AUC = 0.823)(119) Robinson et al (2008). also determine the validity of abPG-SGA compared with MST showed abPG-SGA predicted the MST results with 98% sensitivity and 63% specificity, a positive predictive value of 70% , and a negative predictive value of 92%( 121) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…967) and higher than MST ( 81% sensitivity, 72% specificity, AUC = 0.823)(119) Robinson et al (2008). also determine the validity of abPG-SGA compared with MST showed abPG-SGA predicted the MST results with 98% sensitivity and 63% specificity, a positive predictive value of 70% , and a negative predictive value of 92%( 121) . Moreover, ab-PG-SGA was related to MST ( p = < 0.001 ) when analyzed by chi-square(121).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…84 ( 117) while Kim et al ( 2011) also conducted development and validation study using PG-SGA, NRI, NRS-2002 and MSTC ( Malnutrition Screening Tool for hospitalized Cancer patients) to identify cancer patients at risk for malnutrition(118). The results showed the MSTC may be a valid nutrition screening tool for identifying malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients with 94.0% sensitivity, 84.2% specificity and high agreement with the PG-SGA (kappa value = 0.70, P < 0.001)(118).Besides the original full form of PG-SGA, the abridged PG-SGA or the short form PG-SGA also shown accurate, practical, informative, simple and valid nutritional screening tool for detecting malnutrition in the outpatient oncology setting(119)(120)(121) . and predicts outcomes of cancer cachexia( 122) which provides useful information to clinicians for further nutrition care process(119)(120)(121).There are several previous studies validated abPG-SGA as a nutrition screening tool and evaluate the association of abPG-SGA with other tools.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The results showed the MSTC may be a valid nutrition screening tool for identifying malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients with 94.0% sensitivity, 84.2% specificity and high agreement with the PG-SGA (kappa value = 0.70, P < 0.001)(118).Besides the original full form of PG-SGA, the abridged PG-SGA or the short form PG-SGA also shown accurate, practical, informative, simple and valid nutritional screening tool for detecting malnutrition in the outpatient oncology setting(119)(120)(121) . and predicts outcomes of cancer cachexia( 122) which provides useful information to clinicians for further nutrition care process(119)(120)(121).There are several previous studies validated abPG-SGA as a nutrition screening tool and evaluate the association of abPG-SGA with other tools. According toStoyanoff et al (2009) validated an abPG-SGA as a nutrition screening tool and determine relationship with the PG-SGA and MST(120).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) as a nutrition assessment tool in Thai cancer patients

Nitichai

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is a multidimensional tool to assess malnutrition and risk factors. At present, there is no official Thai translation and cultural adaptation of the PG-SGA available. Health professionals should be able to obtain and utilize valid and reliable tools matched with their own languages and cultures to further produce high quality patient care. The primary objective of this study is to translate and culturally adapt the original PG-SGA for the Thai setting and evaluate perceived comprehensibility, difficulty, content validity and intra-rater reliability of the Thai PG-SGA in cancer patients and healthcare professionals. In addition, this study aimed to determine the validity of the Thai version of the Scored PG-SGA and examine the correlations between clinical variables and nutritional instrument tools. The study consists of two parts. In the first part, the PG-SGA was translated and culturally adapted using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Principles. In 50 cancer patients and 50 healthcare professionals, perceived comprehensibility and difficulty of the Thai PG-SGA were assessed with the Scale Comprehensibility Index (S-CI) and Scale Difficulty Index (S-DI), using a 4-point scale. Content validity, i.e. relevance, was assessed in the professionals only, by Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI). Intra-rater reliability (test-retest within 72 hours of admission) was tested by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and weighted kappa (?). In the second part, 195 cancer patients were enrolled to the study. Nutritional status assessed by the Thai PG-SGA and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), anthropometry, dietary intake, handgrip strength and laboratory data were collected. The results revealed that the systematically translated Thai version of PG-SGA needed 4 cultural adaptations. It showed excellent comprehensibility (S-CI=0.99) and difficulty (S DI=0.95) as perceived by patients. It also showed excellent comprehensibility (S-CI= 0.92) and borderline acceptable difficulty (S-DI=0.79) reflected by professionals. Its relevance in assessing malnutrition was excellent (S-CVI=0.95). Agreement between numerical scores was good to excellent (ICC=0.95), and between PG-SGA categories was very good (?=0.95). The Thai PG-SGA had high sensitivity (99%), specificity (86%) and accuracy (93%) compared to SGA. The prevalence of malnutrition assessed by using the Thai PG-SGA was 62%. It had perfect agreement with SGA in classification of nutritional status. In addition, the nutritional status by each instrument was correlated with anthropometric parameters, body fat, laboratory parameters, dietary intake and hand grip strength (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the Thai version of the PG-SGA is now available and considered very easy to complete by patients, very comprehensible and relevant by professionals, and as borderline acceptable regarding difficulty to complete. It is a valid and reliable nutrition instrument tool in predicting malnutrition among cancer patients.

show abstract