英文摘要 |
Objectives: This study evaluated the validity of mini nutritional assessment (MNA) and malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) that was used in the oncology inpatient unit to acquire a reference for improving the quality of nutritional care. Methods: Subjects were 185 inpatients with head and neck cancer or gastrointestinal cancer recruited from a teaching hospital. Subjects were screened using patient generated-subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), MNA, and MUST within 48 hours of admission. The agreement level of distinguishing the risk of malnutrition between the gold standard and tested tools was examined using kappa coefficient of agreement. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MNA and MUST were calculated as well. Finally, receiver operating characteristic curve was performed to figure out the discrimination of tested tools. Results: (1) Percentages of those subjects possibly had a malnutrition risk screened using PG-SGA, MNA, and MUST were 61.1%, 45.9%, and 46.5%, respectively. (2) Using PG-SGA as a gold standard, the screening results of MNA vs. standard and MUST vs. standard were both consistent (p<.001). (3) The sensitivity and specificity of MNA (67.3% and 86.1%) were both better than those of MUST. (4) Area under curve of MNA was 0.818, also better than that of MUST. Conclusions: MNA may have a better capacity for screening cancer inpatients at a malnutrition risk than MUST using PG-SGA as a gold standard. |