Abstract：
The diagnosis of malnutrition remains a significant challenge despite various published diagnostic criteria. In 2018, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) published a set of evidence-based criteria as a framework for malnutrition diagnosis in adults. A scoping review was conducted to understand how the GLIM criteria have been used in published literature and compare the reported validation methods to published validation guidance.
Dialog and Dimensions databases were searched by publication date (January 1, 2019, through January 29, 2021). Data were extracted and mapped to the research objectives.
Seventy-nine studies were reviewed; 32% were in patients at least 65 years of age; 67% occurred in hospitals. The majority were cohort studies (61%). Fifty-seven percent employed all 5 GLIM criteria. Regarding phenotypic criteria, 92% used low BMI, and 45% applied anthropometry as a marker for muscle mass, of which 54% used calf circumference. Regarding etiologic criteria, 72% used reduced food intake/assimilation, and 85% applied inflammation/disease burden. Validation of GLIM criteria was described in 77% of publications.
The GLIM criteria have been studied extensively since their publication. Low BMI was the phenotypic criterion used most often, whereas both reduced food intake/assimilation and inflammation/disease burden were frequently employed as the etiologic criteria. However, how the criteria were combined and how validation was conducted were not clear in most studies. Adequately powered, methodologically sound validation studies using the complete GLIM criteria are needed in various patient populations and disease settings to assess validity for the diagnosis of malnutrition.
Dialog and Dimensions databases were searched by publication date (January 1, 2019, through January 29, 2021). Data were extracted and mapped to the research objectives.
Seventy-nine studies were reviewed; 32% were in patients at least 65 years of age; 67% occurred in hospitals. The majority were cohort studies (61%). Fifty-seven percent employed all 5 GLIM criteria. Regarding phenotypic criteria, 92% used low BMI, and 45% applied anthropometry as a marker for muscle mass, of which 54% used calf circumference. Regarding etiologic criteria, 72% used reduced food intake/assimilation, and 85% applied inflammation/disease burden. Validation of GLIM criteria was described in 77% of publications.
The GLIM criteria have been studied extensively since their publication. Low BMI was the phenotypic criterion used most often, whereas both reduced food intake/assimilation and inflammation/disease burden were frequently employed as the etiologic criteria. However, how the criteria were combined and how validation was conducted were not clear in most studies. Adequately powered, methodologically sound validation studies using the complete GLIM criteria are needed in various patient populations and disease settings to assess validity for the diagnosis of malnutrition.
摘要：
尽管有各种已发布的诊断标准，但营养不良的诊断仍然是一个重大挑战。2018年，全球营养不良领导力倡议（GLIM）发布了一套基于证据的标准，作为成人营养不良诊断的框架。进行了范围审查，以了解GLIM标准如何在已发表的文献中使用，并将报告的验证方法与已发表的验证指南进行比较。
按发布日期（2019年1月1日至2021年1月29日）搜索Dialog和Dimensions数据库。数据被提取并映射到研究目标。
回顾了79项研究；32％的患者年龄在65岁以上；67％的患者发生在医院。大多数是队列研究（61%）。57%的人采用了所有5项GLIM标准。关于表型标准，92%使用低BMI，45%的人使用人体测量法作为肌肉质量的标记，其中54%使用小腿周长。关于病因标准，72％的人使用减少食物摄入/同化，85%应用炎症/疾病负担。在77%的出版物中描述了GLIM标准的验证。
GLIM标准自发表以来已被广泛研究。低BMI是最常用的表型标准，而减少的食物摄入/同化和炎症/疾病负担都经常被用作病因学标准.然而,在大多数研究中,标准的组合方式和验证方式尚不清楚.足够的动力，在各种患者人群和疾病环境中,需要使用完整的GLIM标准进行方法学上合理的验证研究,以评估营养不良诊断的有效性.
按发布日期（2019年1月1日至2021年1月29日）搜索Dialog和Dimensions数据库。数据被提取并映射到研究目标。
回顾了79项研究；32％的患者年龄在65岁以上；67％的患者发生在医院。大多数是队列研究（61%）。57%的人采用了所有5项GLIM标准。关于表型标准，92%使用低BMI，45%的人使用人体测量法作为肌肉质量的标记，其中54%使用小腿周长。关于病因标准，72％的人使用减少食物摄入/同化，85%应用炎症/疾病负担。在77%的出版物中描述了GLIM标准的验证。
GLIM标准自发表以来已被广泛研究。低BMI是最常用的表型标准，而减少的食物摄入/同化和炎症/疾病负担都经常被用作病因学标准.然而,在大多数研究中,标准的组合方式和验证方式尚不清楚.足够的动力，在各种患者人群和疾病环境中,需要使用完整的GLIM标准进行方法学上合理的验证研究,以评估营养不良诊断的有效性.
