{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06482213438735178, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0683794466403162, 'mean_word_length': 4.272916666666666, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Nutritional Risk and Assessment for Patients with Cancer Pain

Abstract Background The incidence of nutritional risk and malnutrition are high in patients with cancer pain. It is very important to choose an effective tool to identify these patients promptly. However, few studies have discussed this issue. The primary objective of this study is to clarify the similarities and differences between the two nutritional screening and assessment tools, and to estimate the anthropometry and biochemical indicators of the patients with cancer pain, with a view to provide help for treatment of these patients. Method Data of 146 patients with cancer pain were collected from August 2018 to May 2019 in the Pain Therapy Department of Tianjin Cancer Hospital. The information of numerical rating scale (NRS), nutritional risk screening-2002 (NRS-2002), patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), anthropometry and biochemical indicators were collected for pain assessment, nutritional risk screening, and nutritional status assessment. Results NRS scores had a positive correlation with NRS-2002 (R = 0.273, P = 0.001) and PG-SGA (R = 0.341, P = 0.000) separately. NRS-2002 and PG-SGA had a significant positive correlation with each other (R = 0.468, P = 0.000). NRS-2002 was finished in a shorter time period (4.2 ± 0.8 min vs. 12.8 ± 0.8 min, P = 0.001), while PG-SGA had a higher detection rate of malnutrition (86.3% vs. 65.8%). In the stepwise multiple regression analysis, NRS (0.258, P = 0.001), PA (−0.297, P = 0.000), TP (0.178, P = 0.030) are the indicators of NRS-2002; and NRS (0.317, P = 0.000), PA (β = 0.288, P = 0.000) and BMI (−0.281, P = 0.000) are the related variables of PG-SGA. The kappa coefficient was lower than 0.4 (kappa value = 0.396) when choosing the score of NRS-2002 ≥ 3 and PG-SGA ≥ 9 as the diagnostic criteria. If choosing the score of NRS-2002 ≥ 2 and PG-SGA ≥ 9, both the correlation coefficient (R = 0.699, P = 0.000) and the kappa coefficient (kappa value = 0.698, P = 0.000) became more coefficient. Conclusions Both NRS-2002 and PG-SGA could identify patients with nutritional risk and malnutrition accurately. NRS-2002 is simpler and takes less time to finish, while PG-SGA is more cumbersome with a higher detection rate of malnutrition. NRS, PA, TP and BMI are the most important reference indicators predicting on nutritional risk index and malnutrition status. We recommend NRS-2002 ≥ 2 as the diagnostic criteria in order to avoid missing the patients with nutritional risk.