Malnutrition is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with critical illness. The nutrition status of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging to assess. The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) is a novel framework used for the diagnosis of malnutrition. However, its efficacy in patients with critical illness in the ICU has not been validated.
To investigate the use and validity of the GLIM criteria in adult patients admitted to the ICU.
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed, and seven databases were searched for relevant studies. The selection criteria included studies that used the GLIM in adult patients admitted to the ICU. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.
Five studies were included in the analysis. Approximately 15%-68% of patients were diagnosed with malnutrition using the GLIM criteria. Meanwhile, 48%-75% of patients with malnutrition were identified with the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). The inflammation criterion was easily adjudicated due to critical status, and three studies compared the GLIM and the SGA. According to the QUADAS-2 tool, the nutritional assessment process was not explicit in the studies. The meta-analysis had an overall sensitivity of 65.3% (95% CI: 34.9%-86.9%) and an overall specificity of 88.8% (95% CI: 58.1%-97.8%). In the prospective validation, malnutrition assessed by the GLIM criteria, and the SGA was associated with mortality. However, the association between length of hospital stay and mechanical ventilation was unclear.
The use and validity of the GLIM criteria among patients admitted to the ICU is still limited. Moreover, some concurrent and predictive validation studies have methodological limitations. Further studies must be performed to validate the use of the GLIM criteria in the ICU.

This scoping review aimed to identify and map the literature on malnutrition diagnosis made using the GLIM criteria in hospitalized patients.
The scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute\'s methodology. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (until 16 April 2022) to identify studies based on the \'population\' (adults or elderly patients), \'concept\' (malnutrition diagnosis by the GLIM criteria), and \'context\' (hospital settings) framework. Titles/abstracts were screened, and two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies.
Ninety-six studies were eligible (35.4% from China, 30.2% involving oncological patients, and 30.5% with prospective data collection), 32 followed the two-step GLIM approach, and 50 applied all the criteria. All the studies evaluated body mass index (BMI), while 92.7% evaluated weight loss; 77.1%, muscle mass; 93.8%, inflammation; and 70.8%, energy intake. A lack of details on the methods adopted for criterion evaluation was observed in five (muscle mass evaluation) to 40 studies (energy intake evaluation). The frequency of the use of the GLIM criteria ranged from 22.2% (frequency of low BMI) to 84.7% (frequency of inflammation), and the malnutrition prevalence ranged from 0.96% to 87.9%. Less than 30% of studies aimed to assess the GLIM criterion validity, eight studies cited the guidance on validation of the GLIM criteria, and a minority implemented it.
This map of studies on the GLIM criteria in hospital settings demonstrated that they are applied in a heterogeneous manner, with a wide range of malnutrition prevalence. Almost 50% of the studies applied all the criteria, while one-third followed the straightforward two-step approach. The recommendations of the guidance on validation of the criteria were scarcely adhered to. The gaps that need to be explored in future studies have been highlighted.

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.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (COVID-19) has hit older adults harder due to a combination of age-related immunological and metabolic alterations. The aim of this review was to analyze the COVID-19 literature with respect to nutritional status and nutrition management in older adults. No studies only on people aged 65+ years were found, and documentation on those 80+ was rare. Age was found to be strongly associated with worse outcomes, and with poor nutritional status. Prevalence of malnutrition was high among severely and critically ill patients. The studies found a need for nutrition screening and management, and for nutrition support as part of follow-up after a hospital stay. Most tested screening tools showed high sensitivity in identifying nutritional risk, but none were recognized as best for screening older adults with COVID-19. For diagnosing malnutrition, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria are recommended but were not used in the studies found. Documentation of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in relation to nutritional status is missing in older adults. Other COVID-19-associated factors with a possible impact on nutritional status are poor appetite and gastrointestinal symptoms. Vitamin D is the nutrient that has attracted the most interest. However, evidence for supplementation of COVID-19 patients is still limited and inconclusive.

Malnutrition negatively affects the quality of life of patients with dysphagia. Despite the need for nutritional status assessment in patients with dysphagia, standard, effective nutritional assessments are not yet available, and the identification of optimal nutritional assessment items for patients with dysphagia is inadequate. We conducted a scoping review of the use of nutritional assessment items in adult patients with oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify articles published in English within the last 30 years. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven nutritional assessment categories were identified: body mass index (BMI), nutritional screening tool, anthropometric measurements, body composition, dietary assessment, blood biomarkers, and other. BMI and albumin were more commonly assessed in adults. The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM), defining new diagnostic criteria for malnutrition, includes the categories of BMI, nutritional screening tool, anthropometric measurements, body composition, and dietary assessment as its required components, but not the blood biomarkers and the \"other\" categories. We recommend assessing nutritional status, including GLIM criteria, in adult patients with dysphagia. This would standardize nutritional assessments in patients with dysphagia and allow future global comparisons of the prevalence and outcomes of malnutrition, as well as of appropriate interventions.