• Ekmel Burak Ozsenel, Guldan Kahveci, Selma Dagci, Elif Yildirim, Fatih Akdogan, and Sema Basat.
• Department of Internal Medicine, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkiye.
• J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2024 Jul 1; 34 (7): 800804800-804.

ObjectiveTo compare the results of different nutritional screening tools, including NRS-2002, PG-SGA, and NUTRISCORE for the detection of malnutrition in oncology outpatients.Study DesignA descriptive study. Place and Duration of the Study: Daily Chemotherapy Unit, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye, between June and July 2021.MethodologyA total of 69 patients were included in the study, receiving cancer therapy in an outpatient setting. The NRS-2002, PG-SGA, and NUTRISCORE scores were calculated to determine the nutritional status.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 56.74 ± 13.48 years, and 59.4% were females. The mean BMI was 27.29 ± 5.27 kg/m2. Among the patients, 55.1% had insufficient nutritional intake or were at risk of malnutrition according to the NRS-2002, 40.6% according to NUTRISCORE, and 59.4% according to the PG-SGA. There was a significant agreement between the results of the NRS-2002 and PG-SGA in a McNemar test (Kappa: 0.320, p = 0.008).ConclusionNRS-2002 and PG-SGA tools offered greater sensitivity in terms of capturing more patients in the precachectic state than NUTRISCORE. Among these, the NRS-2002 is a shorter test, and thus, would seem to be more practical than the PG-SGA.Key WordsOncology, Malnutrition, Screening tools, NRS-2002, PG-SGA, NUTRISCORE.

16 keywords...

hide…