2020, Article / Letter to editor (Jpen, Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 44, iss. 6, (2020), pp. 992-1003)Background The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) created a consensus-based framework consisting of phenotypic and etiologic criteria to record the occurrence of malnutrition in adults. This is a minimum set of practicable indicators for use in characterizing a patient/client as malnourished, considering the global variations in screening and nutrition assessment, and to be used across different healthcare settings. As with other consensus-based frameworks for diagnosing disease states, these operational criteria require validation and reliability testing, as they are currently based solely on expert opinion. Methods Several forms of validation and reliability are reviewed in the context of GLIM, providing guidance on how to conduct retrospective and prospective studies for criterion and construct validity. Results There are some aspects of GLIM that require refinement; research using large databases can be employed to reach this goal. Machine learning is also introduced as a potential method to support identification of the best cut points and combinations of indicators for use with the different forms of malnutrition, which the GLIM criteria were created to denote. It is noted as well that validation and reliability testing need to occur in a variety of sectors and populations and with diverse persons using GLIM criteria. Conclusion The guidance presented supports the conduct and publication of quality validation and reliability studies for GLIM.
2020, Article / Letter to editor (Clinical Nutrition, vol. 39, iss. 9, (2020), pp. 2872-2880)Background: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) created a consensus-based framework consisting of phenotypic and etiologic criteria to record the occurrence of malnutrition in adults. This is a minimum set of practicable indicators for use in characterizing a patient/client as malnourished, considering the global variations in screening and nutrition assessment, and to be used across different health care settings. As with other consensus-based frameworks for diagnosing disease states, these operational criteria require validation and reliability testing as they are currently based solely on expert opinion. Methods: Several forms of validation and reliability are reviewed in the context of GLIM, providing guidance on how to conduct retrospective and prospective studies for criterion and construct validity. Findings: There are some aspects of GLIM criteria which require refinement; research using large data bases can be employed to reach this goal. Machine learning is also introduced as a potential method to support identification of the best cut-points and combinations of operational criteria for use with the different forms of malnutrition, which the GLIM criteria were created to denote. It is noted as well that the validation and reliability testing need to occur in a variety of sectors, populations and with diverse persons completing the criteria. Conclusion: The guidance presented supports the conduct and publication of quality validation and reliability studies for GLIM. (c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition [Published by Wiley]. All rights reserved.
2020, Article / Letter to editor (Healthcare, vol. 8, iss. 2, (2020))Undernutrition is highly prevalent among community-dwelling older adults. Early identification of nutrition risk is important to prevent or treat undernutrition. This study describes the prevalence rates of nutrition risk in community-dwelling older adults (aged >= 65) using the same validated tool across different countries and aims to identify differences in nutritional risk factors. Cross-sectional data was obtained from three datasets including participants from the Netherlands (NL), Canada (CA) and New Zealand (NZ). Seniors in the Community Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition II (SCREEN II) was used to assess nutritional risk factors and prevalence of risk. Differences between countries were tested with logistic and linear regression. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the influence of sampling strategy. A total of 13,340 participants were included, and 66.3% were found to be at high nutrition risk. After stratifying the data for method of data sampling, prevalence rates showed some differences across countries (NL: 61.5%, NZ: 68.2%, CA: 70.1%). Risk factor items that contributed to nutrition risk also differed among countries: NZ and CA participants scored higher for weight change, skipping meals, problems with meal preparation, use of meal replacements, problems with biting and chewing, low fluid intake and problems with doing groceries, as compared to participants in NL. Low intake of fruits and vegetables and meat were more prevalent in NL. In conclusion: nutrition risk is a worldwide, highly prevalent problem among community-dwelling older adults, but risk factors contributing to nutrition risk differ by country.