ArticleNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2024
Instruments for Evaluating the Nutritional Status of Cancer Patients Undergoing Antineoplastic Treatment: A Scoping Review.
Article in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nutritional Status of Patients with Cancer During Oncological Treatment-A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.Nutrients · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of validated tools to evaluate the nutritional status of the cancer patient provides guaranteed precision and reliability in their nutritional evaluation, ensuring that the information is accurate and reflects the patient's situation. The aim of this study was to identify the valid and reliable instruments in the evaluation of the nutritional status of cancer patients with a diagnosis of solid tumor undergoing antineoplastic treatment (chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy). A scoping review was conducted to search for original articles published in scientific journals in English, Spanish, or Portuguese in the past five years. In order to identify potentially relevant documents, searches were performed in the following databases: SCOPUS, WOS, CINAHL, MEDLINE, BVS, and PUBMED. DECS-MeSH descriptors and Boolean operators were used. In addition, the Arksey and O'Malley protocol, the Joanne Briggs Institute (JBI) method, and the flow chart of the Preferred Information Elements for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, known as PRISMA, were followed. The initial search strategy identified a total of 164 references, which were examined successively, leaving a final selection of ten studies. It was found that the most used instrument for nutritional evaluation was the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). Other questionnaires also stood out such as the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS 2002), and the Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy (FAACT). The variation in the tools used ranges from subjective assessments to objective measurements, thus underlining the need for a comprehensive and individualized approach.
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.