Cited by 57Nutrition and Health in AgingClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis

Relationship between global leadership initiative on malnutrition (GLIM) defined malnutrition and survival, length of stay and post-operative complications in people with cancer: A systematic review

Open access
Brown, Dylan, Loeliger, Jenelle, Stewart, Jane, Graham, Kate L., Goradia, Sunita, Gerges, Chantal, Lyons, Shania, Connor, Molly +4 more·2023·Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background & aims The predictive validity of the GLIM criteria for survival, length of hospital stay (LOHS) and post-operative complications among people with cancer have not been systematically reviewed. This systematic review aims to determine whether GLIM malnutrition is predictive of these outcomes, and whether the predictive validity is affected by how phenotypic and etiologic criteria are assessed. Methods Cohort studies published after 2018 were systematically reviewed according to PRISMA guidelines from Embase, Medline Complete and CINAHL Complete. Risk of bias and methodologic quality were assessed using the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Quality Criteria Checklist tool for Primary research. Results In total, 21 studies were included, including 28,726 participants. All studies investigated survival, where 18 reported GLIM malnutrition is associated with decreased survival. LOHS was investigated in six studies, with all finding an association between GLIM malnutrition and longer LOHS. Post-operative complications were assessed in seven studies, of which five reported GLIM malnutrition was predictive of increased post-operative complications. Methods to assess the GLIM phenotypic and etiologic criteria varied, with consistent predictive ability for survival regardless of method of assessing reduced muscle mass. However, predictive ability was more variable across different measures of inflammation and reduced intake. Conclusion GLIM malnutrition was consistently predictive of worse clinical outcomes. Different measures of reduced muscle mass did not affect the predictive ability of GLIM for survival. However, variation in assessment of the etiologic criteria resulted in varying predictive ability of the GLIM diagnosis for survival.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnu.2023.01.012

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Mortality and disease-free survival were consistently worse among those diagnosed with malnutrition by GLIM, and these clinical outcomes were even worse for severe compared with moderate malnutrition.

    “Mortality and disease‐free survival were consistently worse among those diagnosed with malnutrition by the GLIM approach, and these clinical outcomes were even worse for those patients with severe compared with moderate malnutrition.”
  • Eight systematic reviews, some with meta-analyses, of predictive validity (mainly mortality as the outcome) were published.

    “Concurrently, eight SRs, some with meta‐analyses, of predictive validity (mainly mortality as the outcome) were published (Table 1). 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21”
  • The largest systematic review/meta-analysis focused on patients with cancer included 21 cohort studies with 28,726 patients (14 from China, two from Spain, two from Australia, one from Greece, one from Turkey, and one from Japan).

    “The largest SR/meta‐analysis, focused on patients with cancer, included 21 cohort studies with 28,726 patients (14 from China, two from Spain, two from Australia, one from Greece, one from Turkey, and one from Japan). 16”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, D., Loeliger, J., Stewart, J., Graham, K. L., Goradia, S., Gerges, C., Lyons, S., Connor, M., Stewart, S., Di Giovanni, A., D'Angelo, S., & Kiss, N.
Affiliations
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU)
Corresponding author
Kiss, Nicole
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
255-268
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4315865234
Cited by
57
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 2
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Inflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Keywords
GLIM, GLIM criteria, malnutrition, cancer, survival, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, predictive validity, inflammation
MeSH terms
Humans, Leadership, Length of Stay, Neoplasms, Nutritional Status, Postoperative Complications, Nutrition Assessment, Malnutrition

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