There is no clear indication that the cut-off values for the PG‑SGA Short Form should differ from those used in the full version of the PG‑SGA. Although theoretically a patient might possibly be slightly  underscored if using the PG-SGA SF only, but not overscored, it is important to note that the majority (generally 80-90% of a score for a given patient) of the total PG‑SGA numerical score is being based on the patient-generated aspects (PG‑SGA Short Form).
In general, it would be rather unlikely that a patient’s scoring would be low on the PG-SGA Short Form and high on the professional-generated items (Worksheet 2 to 4).
Research utilizing the PG-SGA is ongoing globally with studies published on the use of the PG‑SGA Short Form, also known as the ‘abridged’ version of the PG-SGA in the literature.
The study by Vigano et al. (Vigano AL, di Tomasso J, Kilgour RD, Trutschnigg B, Lucar E, Morais JA, Borod M. The Abridged Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Is a Useful Tool for Early Detection and Characterization of Cancer Cachexia. J Acad Nutr Diet 2014;114(7):1088-98) which was prospectively performed in 207 advanced lung and gastrointestinal cancer patients, showed that ≥9 points as generated by the PG-SGA Short Form was associated with unfavorable biological markers of cancer cachexia, decreased anthropometric and physical measures, such as body mass index, fat mass, handgrip and leg strength, an average 12% greater length of hospital stay, a dose reduction in chemotherapy, and increased mortality.
The study by Gabrielson et al. (Gabrielson DK, Scaffidi D, Leung E, Stoyanoff L, Robinson J, Nisenbaum R, Brezden-Masley C, Darling PB. Use of an abridged scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (abPG-SGA) as a nutritional screening tool for cancer patients in an outpatient setting. Nutr Cancer 2013;65(2):234-9) performed in 90 oncology outpatients showed an area under curve of 0.956 by the PG‑SGA Short Form. In this study, ≥6 points, and ≥7 points were studied as cut-off values for sensitivity and specificity of the PG‑SGA SF compared to the PG‑SGA Categories (A-Well nourished versus B/C-Moderately malnourished or suspected malnutrition/Severely malnourished). Using the cut-off of ≥6 points resulted in 93.8 sensitivity and 77.6 specificity. Using a cut-off value of ≥7 points improved the specificity to 89.7, but lowered the sensitivity to 84.4.
The optimal cut-off values to be used depend on the purpose or the objectives of the team using the instrument in clinical practice, e.g. aiming for prevention or treatment of malnutrition only; to support expanding or maintaining dietitian or nutritional support services; and/or various types of clinical and outcomes research. Therefore, each organization can make its own decisions on defining which cut-off values should result in referral to a dietitian and other disciplines, but in the context of research, until there are data to support changing the triage approach, the triage as described in the full PG‑SGA should be maintained.