ArticleNutrition research and practice2020
Selection and optimization of nutritional risk screening tools for esophageal cancer patients in China.
Article in Nutrition research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nutritional literacy of patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer based on Nutbeam's health literacy model: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Clinical nutrition as part of the treatment pathway of pancreatic cancer patients: an expert consensus.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of a Nomogram Based on Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index to Predict Surgical Site Infection Among Gynecologic Oncology Patients.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Preliminary Exploration of Setting the Disease Severity Score in the Nutritional Risk Screening of Patients with Severe Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia by Applying NRS2002.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesMalnutrition has multiple impacts on surgical success, postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and costs, particularly for cancer patients. There are various nutrition risk screening tools available for clinical use. Herein, we aim to determine the most appropriate nutritional risk screening system for esophageal cancer (EC) patients in China. SUBJECTS/
methodsIn total, 138 EC patients were enrolled in this study and evaluated by experienced nurses using three different nutritional screening tools, the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 tool (NRS2002), the Patient-generated Subjective Globe Assessment (PG-SGA), and the Nutrition Risk Index (NRI).We compared sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and Youden index generated by each of the three screening tools. Finally, cut-off points for all three tools were re-defined to optimize and validate the best nutritional risk screening tool for assessing EC patients.
resultsOur data suggested that all three screening tools were 100% sensitive for EC patients, while the specificities were 44.4%, 2.96%, and 59.26% for NRS 2002, PG-SGA, and NRI, respectively. NRI had a higher positive likelihood ratio as well as a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve compared to those of NRS 2002 and PG-SGA; although, all three tools had null negative likelihood ratios. After adjusting the cut-off points, the specificity and accuracy for all tools were significantly improved, however, the NRI remained the most appropriate nutritional risk screening system for EC patients.
conclusionsThe NRI is the most suitable (highest sensitivity and accuracy) nutritional risk screening tool for EC patients. The performance of the NRI can be significantly improved if the cut-off point is modified according to the results obtained using MedCalc software.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.