ArticleDiscover oncology2026
Interrater reliability of nutritional risk screening using NRS-2002 in hospitalized patients with cancer.
Article in Discover oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMalnutrition is common among hospitalized cancer patients and has been linked to adverse clinical outcomes. Accurate nutritional risk screening is essential for rapid nutritional intervention. Although the NRS-2002 tool is widely used in clinical practice, its interrater reliability in oncologic settings has not been adequately examined. This study aimed to evaluate the interrater reliability of nutritional risk screening among hospitalized patients with cancer using the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) tool.
designRetrospective cross-sectional study.
methodsThirty-five trained clinical nurses and one registered dietitian independently performed NRS-2002 assessments within 24 h of admission among 434 hospitalized cancer patients. Cohen's kappa statistics were used to evaluate interrater reliability for each NRS-2002 component, including nutritional status, disease severity, and risk classification derived from the total score.
resultsNurses identified fewer patients at nutritional risk than the dietitian (73 vs. 211). In addition, the overall agreement between the registered dietitian and clinical nurses using the NRS-2002 was fair (kappa = 0.343, 95% CI: 0.275 to 0.411). Interrater reliability was fair for nutritional status (kappa = 0.241) but poor for disease severity (kappa = 0.198), whereas perfect agreement was observed for the age component (kappa = 1.000). Among cancer types, patients with breast cancer (n = 11) showed complete agreement (kappa = 1.000), though this finding should be interpreted cautiously because of the small sample size, followed by those with gastrointestinal tumors (kappa = 0.489, 95% CI: 0.289 to 0.689) and esophageal cancer (kappa = 0.408, 95% CI: 0.212 to 0.604). Nurses with junior professional titles (kappa = 0.347) showed slightly higher consistency with the dietitian than those with intermediate titles (kappa = 0.339).
conclusionOverall, this study demonstrated fair interrater reliability of the NRS-2002 for assessing nutritional risk among hospitalized patients with cancer. To improve the reliability of nutritional risk screening, we recommend standardizing the operational definitions of disease severity scores, implementing structured and periodic training programs for clinical nurses, and establishing regular audit and supervision mechanisms. These measures are essential for improving screening consistency and, in turn, patient assessment and subsequent care.
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.