Objective:To systematically evaluate studies validating the performance of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) in diagnosing malnutrition.Methods:Seven Chinese and English databases including Embase, Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP Database were searched for articles on the validation of GLIM criteria published between September 2018 and September 2024. Two researchers independently performed literature screening and data extraction. The concurrent and predictive validity of the criteria was analyzed.Results:A total of 136 papers were included for analysis. The GLIM criteria for diagnosing malnutrition had a sensitivity of 77%, a specificity of 87%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90. Malnutrition diagnosed by the GLIM criteria predicted prolonged hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays, increased readmission and complication rates (both overall and infectious), reduced survivals (median, overall, and disease-free), and increased in-hospital and follow-up mortalities. Both moderate and severe malnutrition predicted decreased overall survival. However, only three studies analyzed the impact of nutritional therapy on the clinical outcomes of malnourished patients.Conclusions:The GLIM criteria accurately differentiate malnutrition and are a valid predictive tool of clinical outcomes. However, the validity criteria in these validation studies were questionable, along with high methodological heterogeneity. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies validating the role of nutritional therapy in improving the clinical outcomes of malnourished patients.

Objective:To systematically evaluate studies validating the performance of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) in diagnosing malnutrition.Methods:Seven Chinese and English databases including Embase, Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP Database were searched for articles on the validation of GLIM criteria published between September 2018 and September 2024. Two researchers independently performed literature screening and data extraction. The concurrent and predictive validity of the criteria was analyzed.Results:A total of 136 papers were included for analysis. The GLIM criteria for diagnosing malnutrition had a sensitivity of 77%, a specificity of 87%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90. Malnutrition diagnosed by the GLIM criteria predicted prolonged hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays, increased readmission and complication rates (both overall and infectious), reduced survivals (median, overall, and disease-free), and increased in-hospital and follow-up mortalities. Both moderate and severe malnutrition predicted decreased overall survival. However, only three studies analyzed the impact of nutritional therapy on the clinical outcomes of malnourished patients.Conclusions:The GLIM criteria accurately differentiate malnutrition and are a valid predictive tool of clinical outcomes. However, the validity criteria in these validation studies were questionable, along with high methodological heterogeneity. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies validating the role of nutritional therapy in improving the clinical outcomes of malnourished patients.

Objective:To conduct a scoping review of studies on the needs assessment based on decision needs assessment workbook and to provide a reference for conducting related studies in China.Methods:Using the scoping review guidelines of Joanna Briggs Institute in Australia as a methodological framework, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and China Biology Medicine disc were searched from establishment of the databases to March 31, 2023.Results:A total of 12 studies were included and the basic information, study objective, type of study, participants, collection method, evaluation guidance tools and results of the included literature were summarized and analyzed.Conclusions:In the future, when medical staff use workbooks for needs assessment, they should pay attention to fully incorporating the core elements of the workbooks, evaluating the decision-making needs of patients from multiple perspectives such as spouses and peer helper, and developing or utilizing existing patient decision aids to provide decision support for patients based on the results of needs assessment, thereby improving the quality of shared decision-making.