Prevalence of malnutrition based on global leadership initiative in malnutrition criteria for completeness of diagnosis and future risk of malnutrition based on current malnutrition diagnosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The proposal of the global leadership initiative in malnutrition (GLIM) criteria has received great attention from clinicians. The criteria are mainly used in the research environment and have the potential to be widely used in the clinic in the future. However, the prevalence of malnutrition and risk of future malnutrition based on a current diagnosis of malnutrition are worth exploring. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed from the earliest available date to 1 February 2023. According to the diagnostic criteria of the GLIM, we analysed the prevalence of malnutrition by directly adopting the GLIM criteria for diagnosis without a previous nutritional risk screening (one-step approach) and by adopting the GLIM criteria for diagnosis after a nutritional risk screening (two-step approach). The main outcome was the prevalence of malnutrition based on the one-and two-step approaches. Secondary outcomes were the future risk of malnutrition based on the GLIM diagnosis, including mortality within and beyond 1 year. primary outcomes were pooled using random-effects models, and secondary outcomes are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 64 articles were included in the study, including a total of 47,654 adult hospitalized patients and 15,089 malnourished patients based on the GLIM criteria. Malnutrition was diagnosed by the one-step approach in 18 studies and by the two-step approach in 46 studies. The prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the one-and two-step approaches was 53% (95% CI, 42%–64%) and 39% (95% CI, 0.35%–0.43%), respectively. The prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the GLIM criteria after a nutritional risk screening was quite different; the prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) GLIM tool was 35% (95% CI, 29%–40%); however, the prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the Mini Nutrition Assessment (MNA) GLIM tool was 48% (95% CI, 35%–62%). Among the disease types, the prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients was 44% (95% CI, 36%–52%), while that in acute and critically ill patients was 44% (95% CI, 33%–56%). The prevalence in patients in internal medicine wards was 40% (95% CI, 34%–45%), while that in patients in surgical wards was 47% (95% CI, 30%–64%). In addition, the mortality risk within 1 year (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.95–3.52; I(2) = 77.1%) and beyond 1 year (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.70–2.45; I(2) = 59.9%) of patients diagnosed with malnutrition by the GLIM criteria was double that of patients with normal nutrition. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed by the GLIM criteria after a nutritional risk screening was significantly lower than the prevalence of malnutrition diagnosed directly by the GLIM criteria. In addition, the mortality risk was significantly greater among malnourished patients assessed by the GLIM criteria. Systematic review registration: identifier CRD42023398454.