Suppr超能文献

营养门诊混合患者群体中GLIM标准与PG-SGA之间的一致性。

Agreement between the GLIM criteria and PG-SGA in a mixed patient population at a nutrition outpatient clinic.

作者信息

Rosnes Kristin S, Henriksen Christine, Høidalen Anne, Paur Ingvild

机构信息

Norwegian Advisory Unit on Disease-Related Undernutrition, Oslo, Norway; Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway.

Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway.

出版信息

Clin Nutr. 2021 Aug;40(8):5030-5037. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.07.019. Epub 2021 Jul 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria is a step-wise process including a screening tool of choice for risk assessment of malnutrition before assessment of diagnosis and grading of malnutrition severity. The agreement between GLIM and the established malnutrition assessment method Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is uncertain. Also, several aspects of GLIM remain to be clearly defined. In this study, we compared diagnosis of malnutrition with the GLIM criteria to the PG-SGA, and explored the differences between the methods.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Nutrition Outpatient Clinic at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. Patients were included from September-December 2019. Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) was used as the screening tool in the GLIM process before diagnosing and grading the severity of malnutrition. Results are presented with and without the initial risk screening. The diagnostic results from the GLIM process were compared to the malnutrition diagnosis using the PG-SGA.

RESULTS

In total, 144 patients, median age 58 years, participated in the study. The full GLIM process identified 36% of the patients as malnourished, while the PG-SGA identified 69% of the patients as malnourished. Comparison of GLIM and PG-SGA showed fair agreement, however the agreement was better when the NRS-2002 screening was excluded. Considering the PG-SGA a gold standard, GLIM had a sensitivity of 51% and a specificity of 98%. The introduction of new cut-off values for fat-free mass did not considerably alter the diagnosis of malnutrition within GLIM.

CONCLUSIONS

The GLIM criteria showed only fair agreement with the PG-SGA, however the agreement was better when the initial NRS-2002 screening was excluded. A joint consensus on how to perform the GLIM process is needed for comparisons of future studies, and before routine use in clinical practice.

摘要

背景与目的

全球营养不良领导倡议(GLIM)标准是一个逐步进行的过程,包括在评估营养不良诊断和严重程度分级之前用于营养不良风险评估的首选筛查工具。GLIM与既定的营养不良评估方法患者主观整体评定法(PG-SGA)之间的一致性尚不确定。此外,GLIM的几个方面仍有待明确界定。在本研究中,我们将根据GLIM标准诊断的营养不良与PG-SGA进行了比较,并探讨了两种方法之间的差异。

方法

本横断面研究在挪威奥斯陆大学医院营养门诊进行。纳入2019年9月至12月的患者。在诊断和分级营养不良严重程度之前,使用营养风险筛查2002(NRS-2002)作为GLIM流程中的筛查工具。给出了有无初始风险筛查的结果。将GLIM流程的诊断结果与使用PG-SGA的营养不良诊断进行比较。

结果

共有144例患者参与研究,中位年龄58岁。完整的GLIM流程将36%的患者诊断为营养不良,而PG-SGA将69%的患者诊断为营养不良。GLIM与PG-SGA的比较显示一致性尚可,但排除NRS-2002筛查时一致性更好。将PG-SGA视为金标准时,GLIM的灵敏度为51%,特异度为98%。引入新的去脂体重临界值并没有显著改变GLIM内营养不良的诊断。

结论

GLIM标准与PG-SGA仅显示出尚可的一致性,但排除初始NRS-2002筛查时一致性更好。未来研究进行比较以及在临床实践中常规使用之前,需要就如何执行GLIM流程达成联合共识。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验