Nutritional assessment in cancer: comparing the mini-nutritional assessment (MNA) with the scored patient-generated subjective global assessment (PGSGA)

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Read, Jane en_US
dc.contributor.author Crockett, Naomi en_US
dc.contributor.author Volker, Dianne en_US
dc.contributor.author Maclennan, Penny en_US
dc.contributor.author Choy, Sai Tsang Boris en_US
dc.contributor.author Beale, Phillip en_US
dc.contributor.author Clarke, Stephen en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2009-12-21T02:34:08Z
dc.date.available 2009-12-21T02:34:08Z
dc.date.issued 2005 en_US
dc.identifier 2005001980 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Read Jane et al. 2005, 'Nutritional assessment in cancer: comparing the mini-nutritional assessment (MNA) with the scored patient-generated subjective global assessment (PGSGA)', Lawrence Erlbaum Association, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 51-56. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0163-5581 en_US
dc.identifier.other C1 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/4613
dc.description.abstract The evaluation of nutritional status in cancer patients is often neglected in spite of the fact that poor nutritional status may adversely affect prognosis and treatment tolerance. In day-to-day oncology practice, a sensitive but simply applied nutritional assessment tool is needed to identify at-rick patients. Several tools exit; however, none has been universally accepted. The aim of this study was to compare two potential tools, the Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and the scored Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PGSGA). The MNA is more simply applied and does not require a trained dietitian. The PGSGA has been previously validated in cancer patients. One hundred fifty-seven newly diagnosed cancer patients were assessed using noth tools. Of these, 126 were reassessed at 4-6 kr, and 104 were reassessed at Weeks 8-12 after initial assessment. A significant negative correlation was found between the tools at all three time periods (at baseline r=-0.76; P< 0.001). Taking the PGSGA as the most accepted nutritional assessment tool, at baseline the MNA demonstrated a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 54%. At 4-6 wk MNA sensitivity was 93% and specificity was 82%. When comparing the tools in elderly patients alone (>65yr), similar results were obtained. Both tools were able to correctly classify patients as malnourished, althouh MNA lacks specificity. Therefore, the PGSGA should be the tool of choice for nutritional assessment in cancer patients. en_US
dc.publisher Lawrence Erlbaum Association en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327914nc5301_6 en_US
dc.title Nutritional assessment in cancer: comparing the mini-nutritional assessment (MNA) with the scored patient-generated subjective global assessment (PGSGA) en_US
dc.parent Nutrition and Cancer en_US
dc.journal.volume 53 en_US
dc.journal.number 1 en_US
dc.publocation New Jersey, USA en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 51 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 56 en_US
dc.cauo.name SCI.Mathematical Sciences en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 111100 en_US
dc.personcode 0000024916 en_US
dc.personcode 0000025763 en_US
dc.personcode 0000024919 en_US
dc.personcode 0000025764 en_US
dc.personcode 030715 en_US
dc.personcode 0000024917 en_US
dc.personcode 0000024921 en_US
dc.percentage 60 en_US
dc.classification.name Nutrition and Dietetics en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.custom 2.149 en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record