Silva Santos, Leidiane1; Custodio dos Santos, Ellen Maria2; Melo, Nathalia Caroline de Oliveira2; Silva, Laura Mata de Lima2; LeÃ£o da Costa, Isabela Catarina1; Maio, Regiane3
Introduction: For the oncological population, Subjective Global Evaluation Produced by the Patient (ASG-PPP) is gold standard, but other methods, such as Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) and Graz Malnutrition Screening (GMS), seem to be useful.
Objective: To compare the nutritional screening methods NRS 2002 and GMS in oncology patients hospitalized in a public hospital in Recife-PE.
Methodology: A descriptive, observational study with oncologic patients hospitalized at the Hospital Servidores do Estado de Pernambuco (HSE-PE) from July to October 2017, submitted to nutritional screening tools: NRS 2002, GMS and ASG-PPP.
Results: 68 patients were evaluated, being 63% female and 63% elderly. 78% were hospitalized in the oncology ward, 19% in the medical clinic ward and 3% in the surgical ward. The frequencies of nutritional risk were 91% for GMS, 88% for ASG-PPP and 85% for NRS 2002. The sensitivity found for NRS 2002 was 91.7% and, for GMS, 98.3%. For specificity, a similar value was observed for both instruments (62.5%).
Discussion: In the sample studied, it was observed that between the GMS and NRS 2002 tools, MSG was more sensitive and therefore a useful tool for the adequate diagnosis of nutritional risk in cancer patients.
Conclusion: GMS and NRS 2002 showed excellent sensitivity in relation to ASG-PPP in the identification of nutritional risk, with emphasis on MSG, but a reduced specificity when identifying the group without nutritional risk, when compared to the ASG-PPP, which is the validated screening for cancer patients.