No abstract

Context Malnutrition has a negative impact on patients with cancer. Identifying risk, nutritional status, and functional capacity can contribute to adequate and early nutritional therapy, which can reduce unfavorable clinical outcomes. Objective To evaluate and summarize the main instruments of nutritional assessment and functional capacity and associate their results with clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with cancer. Data sources A systematic search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, SciELO, and LILACS databases. Studies in which researchers evaluated and compared screening, nutritional assessment, and functional capacity instruments and their associations with clinical outcomes were included. Data extraction The data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Results A total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 20 441 individuals). The Nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) were the most common tools used for nutritional assessment. High nutritional risk according to the NRS-2202 and worse nutritional status according to the PG-SGA and Subjective Global Assessment were positively associated with a longer hospital stay and mortality. Low functional capacity, according to handgrip strength, was associated with longer hospital stay and nutrition impact symptoms. Conclusions Tools such as the NRS-2002, PG-SGA, Subjective Global Assessment, and handgrip strength assessment are efficacious for assessing unfavorable clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with cancer.

Background In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), an accurate assessment of food intake is essential for clinical nutritional management. Tools such as the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and 24‐h food record (24HR) identify dietary habits in support of dietary planning. However, it is possible that these tools have reporting errors with respect to assessing food intake, particularly energy intake (EI). Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted in patients with type 2 DM. EI was assessed by the FFQ and 24HR tools. Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry. Data were analysed using a kappa test, t‐test and Spearman's correlation coefficients. Under‐reporting was assessed using the EI/REE ratio. Patients with values <1.18 and <1.10 for FFQ and 24HR, respectively, were considered as under‐reporting. Results We evaluated 55 patients [mean (SD) 62.7 (5.3) years old, duration of diabetes 11.2 (7.3) years, 52.7% female]. The mean (SD) EI assessed by FFQ was 1797.7 (641.3) and as assessed by 24HR was 1624 (484.8) kcal day–1. The mean (SD) REE was 1641.3 (322.3) kcal day–1. The mean (SD) ratios FFQ/REE and 24HR/REE were 1.11 (0.38) and 1.01 (0.30), respectively. The tools showed a moderate agreement for under‐reporting of EI (kappa = 0.404; P = 0.003). Moderate and positive correlations between REE were observed with FFQ (r = 0.321; P = 0.017) and 24HR (r = 0.364; P = 0.006). According to the tools, the under‐reporting was observed in approximately 65% of patients. Conclusions The majority of patients with type 2 DM under‐reported their calorie intake, as assessed by FFQ and 24HR. REE showed a positive correlation with both tools.

Background Evaluation of the resting energy expenditure (REE) is essential to ensure an appropriate dietary prescription for patients with type 2 diabetes. The aim of this record was to evaluate the accuracy of predictive equations for REE estimation in patients with type 2 diabetes, considering indirect calorimetry (IC) as the reference method. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed in outpatients with type 2 diabetes. Clinical, body composition by electrical bioimpedance and laboratory variables were evaluated. The REE was measured by IC (QUARK RMR, Cosmed, Rome, Italy) and estimated by eleven predictive equations. Data were analyzed using Bland–Altman plots, paired t-tests, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Results Sixty-two patients were evaluated [50% female; mean age 63.1 ± 5.2 years; diabetes duration of 11 (1–36) years, and mean A1C of 7.6 ± 1.2%]. There was a wide variation in the accuracy of REE values predicted by equations when compared to IC REE measurement. In all patients, Ikeda and Mifflin St-Jeor equations were that most underestimated REE. And, the equations that overestimated the REE were proposed by Dietary Reference Intakes and Huang. The most accurate equations were FAO/WHO/UNO in women (− 1.8% difference) and Oxford in men (− 1.3% difference). Conclusion In patients with type 2 diabetes, in the absence of IC, FAO/WHO/UNO and Oxford equations provide the best REE prediction in comparison to measured REE for women and men, respectively.

TransTornos alimenTares em homens absTinenTes de subsTâncias psicoaTivas em TraTamenTo ambulaTorial