Cited by 1,724Nutrition and Health in AgingClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyBody Composition Measurement Techniques

GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition - a consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community

Open access
Cederholm, T., Jensen, G.L., Correia, M.I.T.D., Gonzalez, M.C., Fukushima, R., Higashiguchi, T., Baptista, G., Barazzoni, R. +26 more·2019·Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle

Abstract

RATIONALE: This initiative is focused on building a global consensus around core diagnostic criteria for malnutrition in adults in clinical settings. METHODS: In January 2016, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) was convened by several of the major global clinical nutrition societies. GLIM appointed a core leadership committee and a supporting working group with representatives bringing additional global diversity and expertise. Empirical consensus was reached through a series of face-to-face meetings, telephone conferences, and e-mail communications. RESULTS: A two-step approach for the malnutrition diagnosis was selected, i.e., first screening to identify "at risk" status by the use of any validated screening tool, and second, assessment for diagnosis and grading the severity of malnutrition. The malnutrition criteria for consideration were retrieved from existing approaches for screening and assessment. Potential criteria were subjected to a ballot among the GLIM core and supporting working group members. The top five ranked criteria included three phenotypic criteria (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced muscle mass) and two etiologic criteria (reduced food intake or assimilation, and inflammation or disease burden). To diagnose malnutrition at least one phenotypic criterion and one etiologic criterion should be present. Phenotypic metrics for grading severity as Stage 1 (moderate) and Stage 2 (severe) malnutrition are proposed. It is recommended that the etiologic criteria be used to guide intervention and anticipated outcomes. The recommended approach supports classification of malnutrition into four etiology-related diagnosis categories. CONCLUSION: A consensus scheme for diagnosing malnutrition in adults in clinical settings on a global scale is proposed. Next steps are to secure further collaboration and endorsements from leading nutrition professional societies, to identify overlaps with syndromes like cachexia and sarcopenia, and to promote dissemination, validation studies, and feedback. The diagnostic construct should be re-considered every 3-5 years.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcsm.12383

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A list of conditions was provided in the original guidance that could be used to determine assimilation challenges, but severity and duration were not considered at that time.

    “A list of conditions was provided in the original guidance 3 , 4 , 5 that could be used to determine assimilation challenges. However, severity and duration were not considered at that time.”

    From GLIM consensus approach to diagnosis of malnutrition: A 5‐year update (2025) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results section, “Reduced food intake or assimilation,” lists conditions associated with reduced assimilation. But the guidance also says to assess severity and note symptom frequency and duration, directly contradicting the claim that severity and duration were not considered. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Malnutrition assessment requires the association of a phenotype and an etiology (GLIM criteria).

    “Meanwhile, following the screening process, the malnutrition assessment requires the association of a phenotype (weight loss %, BMI, decrease in appetite, and/or low muscle mass) and an etiology e.g.critical illness [17] (GLIM (Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition) criteria).”

    From ESPEN practical and partially revised guideline: Clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit (2023) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Results section (‘Approach to using combined phenotypic and etiologic criteria’) says GLIM diagnosis requires at least one phenotypic and one etiologic criterion. It lists weight loss, reduced BMI, and reduced muscle mass as phenotypic, but places reduced food intake or assimilation under etiologic criteria; the citing sentence incorrectly lists decreased appetite as phenotypic. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound are methods that can be used to evaluate muscle mass when experience and relevant reference values are available.

    “Bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound are methods that can be used when experience and relevant reference values are available.”

    From GLIM consensus approach to diagnosis of malnutrition: A 5‐year update (2025) · cites this paper as [5]

    In Results > Reduced muscle mass (page not provided), the paper recommends all five listed methods for measuring muscle mass and discusses reference standards and cut-off values. It does not state that their use depends on the availability of experience, so that condition is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The 2019 GLIM consensus papers provided a framework for a globally accepted diagnostic process that should be valid for adults in most settings, irrespective of methodological availability and resources.

    “These insights culminated in the 2019 GLIM consensus papers that provided a framework for a globally accepted diagnostic process that should be valid for adults in most settings, irrespective of methodological availability and resources.”
  • The GLIM consensus process arrived at a two-step procedure starting with nutrition screening followed by diagnostic assessment for confirmation of malnutrition.

    “The consensus process arrived at a two‐step GLIM procedure that starts with nutrition screening followed by diagnostic assessment for confirmation of malnutrition.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. [1]Jensen GL, Mirtallo J, Compher C, Dhaliwal R, Forbes A, Grijalba RF, et al. Adult starvation and disease‐related malnutrition: a proposal for etiology‐based diagnosis in the clinical practice setting from the International Consensus Guideline Committee. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2010; 34: 156– 159, Clin Nutr 2010;29:151–3. 20375423
  2. [2]Cederholm T, Barazzoni R, Austin P, Ballmer P, Biolo G, Bischoff SC, et al. ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition. Clin Nutr 2017; 36: 49– 64. 27642056
  3. [3]Soeters PB, Reijven PL, van Bokhorst‐de van der Schueren MA, Schols JM, Halfens RJ, Meijers JM, et al. A rational approach to nutritional assessment. Clin Nutr 2008; 27: 706– 716. 18783855
  4. [4]Detsky AS, McLaughlin JR, Baker JP, Johnston N, Whittaker S, Mendelson RA, et al. What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status? J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1987; 11: 8– 13. 3820522
  5. [5]Evans WJ, Morley JE, Argilés J, Bales C, Baracos V, Guttridge D, et al. Cachexia: a new definition. Clin Nutr 2008; 27: 793– 799. 18718696
  6. [6]Fearon K, Strasser F, Anker SD, Bosaeus I, Bruera E, Fainsinger RL, et al. Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 489– 495. 21296615
  7. [7]White JV, Guenter P, Jensen G, Malone A, Schofield M, Academy Malnutrition Work Group, et al. Consensus statement: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: characteristics recommended for the identification and documentation of adult malnutrition (undernutrition). J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2012; 36: 275– 283. 22535923
  8. [8]Cederholm T, Bosaeus I, Barazzoni R, Bauer J, Van Gossum A, Klek S, et al. Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition – An ESPEN consensus statement. Clin Nutr 2015; 34: 335– 340. 25799486
  9. [9]Jensen GL. Global Leadership Conversation: Addressing Malnutrition. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2016; 40: 455– 457. 26993988
  10. [10]Cederholm T, Jensen GL. To create a consensus on malnutrition diagnostic criteria: A report from the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) meeting at the ESPEN Congress 2016. Clin Nutr 2017; 36: 7– 10. 28034565
  11. [11]Jensen GL, Cederholm T. Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition: Progress Report From ASPEN Clinical Nutrition Week 2017. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2017; 10.1177/0148607117707761. 28453391 · DOI
  12. [12]Kondrup J, Allison SP, Elia M, Vellas B, Plauth M, Educational and Clinical Practice Committee, European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN). ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening 2002. Clin Nutr 2003; 22: 415– 421. 12880610
  13. [13]Skipper A, Ferguson M, Thompson K, Castellanos VH, Porcari J. Nutrition screening tools: an analysis of the evidence. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2012; 36: 292– 298. 22045723
  14. [14]van Bokhorst‐de van der Schueren MA, Guaitoli PR, Jansma EP, de Vet HC. Nutrition screening tools: does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting. Clin Nutr 2014; 33: 39– 58. 23688831
  15. [15]Cruz‐Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 2010; 39: 412– 423. 20392703 PMC2886201
  16. [17]Chen LK, Lee WJ, Peng LN, Liu LK, Arai H, Akishita M, et al. Recent advances in sarcopenia research in Asia: Updat from the Asian working group for sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016; 17: 767.e1– 767.e7. 27372539
  17. [19]Jensen GL, Hsiao PY, Wheeler D. Adult nutrition assessment tutorial. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2012; 36: 267– 274. 22402644
  18. [22]Stratton RJ, Hackston A, Longmore D, Dixon R, Price S, Stroud M, et al. Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the 'malnutrition universal screening tool' ('MUST') for adults. Br J Nutr 2004; 92: 799– 808. 15533269
  19. [23]Fouque D, Kalantar‐Zadeh K, Kopple J, Cano N, Chauveau P, Cuppari L, et al. A proposed nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for protein–energy wasting in acute and chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int 2008; 73: 391– 398. 18094682
  20. [25]Baumgartner RN, Koehler KM, Gallagher D, Romero L, Heymsfield SB, Ross RR, et al. Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 147: 755– 763. 9554417
  21. [26]Chiles Shaffer N, Ferrucci L, Shardell M, Simonsick EM, Studenski S. Agreement and Predictive Validity Using Less‐Conservative Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project Weakness Cut points. J Am Geriatr Soc 2017; 65: 574– 579. 28024092 PMC5357162

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cederholm, T., Jensen, G. L., Correia, M. I. T. D., Gonzalez, M. C., Fukushima, R., Higashiguchi, T., Baptista, G., Barazzoni, R., Blaauw, R., Coats, A. J. S., Crivelli, A. N., Evans, D. C., Gramlich, L., Fuchs‐Tarlovsky, V., Keller, H., Llido, L., Malone, A., Mogensen, K. M., Morley, J. E., Muscaritoli, M., Nyulasi, I., Pirlich, M., Pisprasert, V., de van der Schueren, M. A. E., Siltharm, S., Singer, P., Tappenden, K., Velasco, N., Waitzberg, D., Yamwong, P., Yu, J., Van Gossum, A., Compher, C., & GLIM Core Leadership Committee, G. W. G.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
  • Post‐graduate Program in Health and Behavior Catholic University of Pelotas RS Brazil
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • Fujita Health University (JP)
  • Hospital Clínico Universitario de Caracas (VE)
  • University of Trieste (IT)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Unit of Nutrition Support and Malabsorptive Diseases Hospital HIGA San Martín Buenos Aires Argentina
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Hospital General de México (MX)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • St. Luke's Medical Center (PH)
  • Mount Carmel Health (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Saint Louis University Hospital (US)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Alfred Health (AU)
  • Imperial Oak Outpatient Clinic, Endocrinology, Gastroenterology and Clinical Nutrition Berlin Germany
  • Khon Kaen University (TH)
  • Department of Nutrition and Dietetics Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands
  • Ministry of Science and Technology Thailand (TH)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Siriraj Hospital (TH)
  • Peking Union Medical College Hospital (CN)
  • Department of Gastroenterology, Clinic of Intestinal Diseases and Nutritional Support Hopital Erasme, Free University of Brussels Brussels Belgium
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Cederholm, T.
Venue
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-02
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
207-217
ISSN
  • 2190-5991 (ISSN-L)
  • 2190-6009
OpenAlex
W2930675045
Cited by
1,724
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 174 · 2025: 209 · 2024: 233 · 2023: 216 · 2022: 191 · 2021: 315 · 2020: 270 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
150.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17K10608)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Keywords
malnutrition diagnosis, GLIM criteria, malnutrition screening, weight loss, body mass index, muscle mass, hypophagia, inflammation, cachexia, sarcopenia
MeSH terms
Adult, Eating, Humans, Phenotype, Global Health, Weight Loss, Body Mass Index, Consensus, Malnutrition, Sarcopenia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review