Content validity of methods to assess malnutrition in cancer patients: a systematic review

Martine Sealy, Willemke Nijholt, M.M. Stuiver, M.M. van der Berg, Faith D. Ottery, Cees van der Schans, Jan L N Roodenburg, Harriët Jager-Wittenaar

Research output: Contribution to conferencePosterAcademic

11 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Rationale: Inadequate operationalisation of the multidimensial concept of malnutrition may result in inadequate evaluation of nutritional status. In this review we aimed to assess content validity of methods used to assess malnutrition in cancer patients, according to domains directly derived from European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) definitions for malnutrition.
Methods: Studies on malnutrition in adult cancer patients published between 1999 and 2013 were considered eligible. Methods to assess malnutrition were classified using 13 indicators within three domains that the malnutrition definitions of ESPEN and ASPEN have in common: A) Nutrient balance; B) Changes in body shape, body area and body composition; and C) Body function.
Content validity index per method (M-CVIA-C) was calculated by averaging indicator scores weighted per domain, quantifying to what extent the methods covered the construct of malnutrition. Acceptable content validity was defined as M-CVIA-C ≥0.80.
Results: 40 Different methods within 166 articles were identified. Median M-CVIA-C was 0.22 (interquartile range: 0.08-0.53). None of the methods reached M-CVIA-C=0.80. Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA; M-CVIA-C=0.75), Nutritional Screening Questionnaire (NSQ; M-CVIA-C=0.56) and Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA; M-CVIA-C=0.53) were responsible for the top 25% of M-CVIA-C scores.
Conclusion: Content validity of methods that assess malnutrition in cancer patients varies widely and is unacceptable in terms of M-CVIA-C. MNA, NSQ and PG-SGA showed highest scores in terms of content validity.
Conflict of interest: None.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2014

Keywords

  • malnutrition
  • cancer patients

Cite this

@conference{b6a28bb8f2884190bac520616333d9a8,
title = "Content validity of methods to assess malnutrition in cancer patients: a systematic review",
abstract = "Rationale: Inadequate operationalisation of the multidimensial concept of malnutrition may result in inadequate evaluation of nutritional status. In this review we aimed to assess content validity of methods used to assess malnutrition in cancer patients, according to domains directly derived from European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) definitions for malnutrition. Methods: Studies on malnutrition in adult cancer patients published between 1999 and 2013 were considered eligible. Methods to assess malnutrition were classified using 13 indicators within three domains that the malnutrition definitions of ESPEN and ASPEN have in common: A) Nutrient balance; B) Changes in body shape, body area and body composition; and C) Body function.Content validity index per method (M-CVIA-C) was calculated by averaging indicator scores weighted per domain, quantifying to what extent the methods covered the construct of malnutrition. Acceptable content validity was defined as M-CVIA-C ≥0.80.Results: 40 Different methods within 166 articles were identified. Median M-CVIA-C was 0.22 (interquartile range: 0.08-0.53). None of the methods reached M-CVIA-C=0.80. Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA; M-CVIA-C=0.75), Nutritional Screening Questionnaire (NSQ; M-CVIA-C=0.56) and Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA; M-CVIA-C=0.53) were responsible for the top 25{\%} of M-CVIA-C scores. Conclusion: Content validity of methods that assess malnutrition in cancer patients varies widely and is unacceptable in terms of M-CVIA-C. MNA, NSQ and PG-SGA showed highest scores in terms of content validity. Conflict of interest: None.",
keywords = "malnutrition, cancer patients, ondervoeding, kankerpati{\"e}nten",
author = "Martine Sealy and Willemke Nijholt and M.M. Stuiver and {van der Berg}, M.M. and Ottery, {Faith D.} and {van der Schans}, Cees and Roodenburg, {Jan L N} and Harri{\"e}t Jager-Wittenaar",
year = "2014",
month = "9",
language = "English",

}

Content validity of methods to assess malnutrition in cancer patients: a systematic review. / Sealy, Martine; Nijholt, Willemke; Stuiver, M.M.; van der Berg, M.M.; Ottery, Faith D.; van der Schans, Cees; Roodenburg, Jan L N; Jager-Wittenaar, Harriët.

2014.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePosterAcademic

TY - CONF

T1 - Content validity of methods to assess malnutrition in cancer patients: a systematic review

AU - Sealy, Martine

AU - Nijholt, Willemke

AU - Stuiver, M.M.

AU - van der Berg, M.M.

AU - Ottery, Faith D.

AU - van der Schans, Cees

AU - Roodenburg, Jan L N

AU - Jager-Wittenaar, Harriët

PY - 2014/9

Y1 - 2014/9

N2 - Rationale: Inadequate operationalisation of the multidimensial concept of malnutrition may result in inadequate evaluation of nutritional status. In this review we aimed to assess content validity of methods used to assess malnutrition in cancer patients, according to domains directly derived from European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) definitions for malnutrition. Methods: Studies on malnutrition in adult cancer patients published between 1999 and 2013 were considered eligible. Methods to assess malnutrition were classified using 13 indicators within three domains that the malnutrition definitions of ESPEN and ASPEN have in common: A) Nutrient balance; B) Changes in body shape, body area and body composition; and C) Body function.Content validity index per method (M-CVIA-C) was calculated by averaging indicator scores weighted per domain, quantifying to what extent the methods covered the construct of malnutrition. Acceptable content validity was defined as M-CVIA-C ≥0.80.Results: 40 Different methods within 166 articles were identified. Median M-CVIA-C was 0.22 (interquartile range: 0.08-0.53). None of the methods reached M-CVIA-C=0.80. Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA; M-CVIA-C=0.75), Nutritional Screening Questionnaire (NSQ; M-CVIA-C=0.56) and Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA; M-CVIA-C=0.53) were responsible for the top 25% of M-CVIA-C scores. Conclusion: Content validity of methods that assess malnutrition in cancer patients varies widely and is unacceptable in terms of M-CVIA-C. MNA, NSQ and PG-SGA showed highest scores in terms of content validity. Conflict of interest: None.

AB - Rationale: Inadequate operationalisation of the multidimensial concept of malnutrition may result in inadequate evaluation of nutritional status. In this review we aimed to assess content validity of methods used to assess malnutrition in cancer patients, according to domains directly derived from European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) definitions for malnutrition. Methods: Studies on malnutrition in adult cancer patients published between 1999 and 2013 were considered eligible. Methods to assess malnutrition were classified using 13 indicators within three domains that the malnutrition definitions of ESPEN and ASPEN have in common: A) Nutrient balance; B) Changes in body shape, body area and body composition; and C) Body function.Content validity index per method (M-CVIA-C) was calculated by averaging indicator scores weighted per domain, quantifying to what extent the methods covered the construct of malnutrition. Acceptable content validity was defined as M-CVIA-C ≥0.80.Results: 40 Different methods within 166 articles were identified. Median M-CVIA-C was 0.22 (interquartile range: 0.08-0.53). None of the methods reached M-CVIA-C=0.80. Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA; M-CVIA-C=0.75), Nutritional Screening Questionnaire (NSQ; M-CVIA-C=0.56) and Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA; M-CVIA-C=0.53) were responsible for the top 25% of M-CVIA-C scores. Conclusion: Content validity of methods that assess malnutrition in cancer patients varies widely and is unacceptable in terms of M-CVIA-C. MNA, NSQ and PG-SGA showed highest scores in terms of content validity. Conflict of interest: None.

KW - malnutrition

KW - cancer patients

KW - ondervoeding

KW - kankerpatiënten

M3 - Poster

ER -