Nutritional risk screening: a need to guide Alice in Nutritionland
Open accessAbstract
Purpose of review: With the shifts in society, healthcare and the profile of the malnourished individual, a re-consideration of the goal of nutritional risk screening is needed: screening for malnutrition, or screening for risk of malnutrition? In this review article, we reflect on the role of nutritional risk screening in relation to prevention and treatment of malnutrition. Recent findings: Within the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) Initiative, modified Delphi studies are currently being conducted to reach global consensus on the conceptual definition and operationalization of ‘risk of malnutrition’. This is necessary because various studies have demonstrated that different nutritional screening tools identify different individuals, due to variability in screening tool criteria, which influences GLIM outcomes. Upon screening, three different situations can be distinguished: having risk factors for malnutrition without clear signs of presence of malnutrition, having mild signs of malnutrition (malnutrition in progress), or having obvious signs of malnutrition. Summary: The outcomes of the studies on ‘risk of malnutrition’ will guide the screening step within the GLIM process, and will help professionals to make informed choices regarding screening policy and screening tool(s).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Many validated screening tools are now available, with most focusing on identification of individuals who already have signs of malnutrition, whereas others identify risk factors for developing malnutrition.
“Many validated screening tools are now available, 31 , 32 with most focusing on the identification of individuals who already have signs of malnutrition, whereas others identify risk factors for developing malnutrition. 33 , 34 , 35 , 36”
From GLIM consensus approach to diagnosis of malnutrition: A 5‐year update (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 9
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- AND RECOMMENDED READING Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as: & of special interest && of outstanding interest
- Kondrup J, Allison SP, Elia M, et al. ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening 2002. Clin Nutr 2003; 22:415-421.
- Cederholm T, Barazzoni R, Austin P, et al. ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition. Clin Nutr 2017; 36:49-64.
- Cederholm T, Jensen GL, Correia MITD, et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition -a consensus report from the global clinical nutrition com- munity. Clin Nutr 2019; 38:1-9.
- Chabouh S, El-Amraoui A, Hammami S, Bouchriha H. A systematic review of the home healthcare planning literature: emerging trends and future research directions. Dec Analyt J 2023; 7:100215.
- Koliaki C, Dalamaga M, Liatis S. Update on the obesity epidemic: after the sudden rise, is the upward trajectory beginning to flatten? Curr Obes Rep 2023; 12:514-527.
- Ng DHL, Koh FHX, Yeong HEL, et al. Nutrition care after hospital discharge in Singapore: evidence-based best-practice recommendations. Nutrients 2023; 15:4492.
- Mills CM, Keller HH, DePaul VG, et al. Factors associated with the devel- opment of high nutrition risk: data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Can J Aging 2024; 43:153-166.
- & De van der Schueren MAE, Jager-Wittenaar H. Malnutrition risk screening: new insights in a new era. Clin Nutr 2022; 41:2163-2168.
- Cort es-Aguilar R, Malih N, Abbate M, et al. Validity of nutrition screening tools for risk of malnutrition among hospitalized adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr 2024; 43:1094-1116.
- && García-Fuente I, Corral-Gudino L, Gabella-Martín M, et al. How to detect non- institutionalized older patients at risk of malnutrition during their hospitaliza- tion? Comparison of 8 screening tools for malnutrition or nutritional risk. Rev Clin Esp (Barc) 2024; 224:217-224.
- Tan S, Jiang J, Qiu L, et al. Prevalence of malnutrition in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative study of GLIM criteria, NRS2002, and PG-SGA, and identification of independent risk factors. Nutr Cancer 2024; 76:335-344.
- Wang Y, Liu Z, Zhang H, et al. Evaluation of different screening tools as the first step of the GLIM framework: A cross-sectional study of Chinese cancer patients in an outpatient setting. Nutr Clin Pract 2024; 39:702-713.
- Lima J, Brizola Dias AJ, Burgel CF, et al. Complementarity of nutritional screening tools to GLIM criteria on malnutrition diagnosis in hospitalised patients: a secondary analysis of a longitudinal study. Clin Nutr 2022; 41:2325-2332.
- Van Dronkelaar C, Tieland M, Cederholm T, et al. Malnutrition screening tools are not sensitive enough to identify older hospital patients with malnutrition. Nutrients 2023; 15:5126.
- Wong HJ, Harith S, Lua PL, Ibrahim KA. Comparison of concurrent validity of different malnutrition screening tools with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) among stroke survivors in Malaysia. Sci Rep 2023; 13:5189.
- Wang M, Guo Q, Liu H, et al. GLIM criteria using NRS-2002 and MUST as the first step adequately diagnose the malnutrition in Crohn's disease inpatients: a retrospective study. Front Nutr 2023; 9:1059191.
- Liu P, Tian H, Ji T, et al. Predictive value of malnutrition, identified via different nutritional screening or assessment tools, for functional outcomes in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients 2023; 15: 3280.
- Enge M, Peelen FO, Nielsen RL, et al. Malnutrition prevalence according to GLIM and its feasibility in geriatric patients: a prospective cross-sectional study. Eur J Nutr 2024; 63:927-938.
- Mlakar-Mastnak D, Blaz ˇKova c M, Ter celj M, et al. Effectiveness of nutritional intervention led by clinical dietitian in patients at risk of malnutrition at the primary healthcare level in Slovenia -evaluation study. Zdr Varst 2024; 63:81-88.
- Authors
- Jager-Wittenaar, H., Sealy, M., Naumann, E., & de van der Schueren, M.
- Affiliations
- Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Research Group Healthy Ageing, Allied Health Care and Nursing, Groningen
- Hanze University of Applied Sciences (NL)
- HAN University of Applied Sciences (NL)
- Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Lifestyle, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care
- Published
- 2024-06-05
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 381-386
- ISSN
- 1363-1950 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-6519
- OpenAlex
- W4399363947
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 2.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.wur.nl
- Locations
- Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
- Keywords
- nutritional risk screening, malnutrition, malnutrition risk, GLIM, nutritional screening tools, malnutrition prevention, malnutrition treatment
- MeSH terms
- Delphi Technique, Humans, Mass Screening, Nutritional Status, Risk Factors, Nutrition Assessment, Risk 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
