The Use of Different Muscle Assessment Techniques to Assess Validity of Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM)

Abstract

ObjectivesTo assess which combination of indicators in the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) diagnostic tool better predicts malnutrition. Additionally, to compare the validity of GLIM upon the use of different muscle assessment techniques for the assessment of muscle loss. MethodsNutritional screening was performed through the Nutrition Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) or the Mini-Nutrition Assessment-Full Form (MNA-FF). Nutritionally at-risk patients were assessed for malnutrition using the GLIM criterion. Fat free muscle index (FFMI), nutrition focused physical examination (NFPE) and handgrip strength (HG) were used to identify muscle loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated for GLIM with each of the three muscle assessment tools. Results579 patients were screened for malnutrition and 121(20.90%) patients were considered nutritionally at risk. GLIM criterion showed close percentages of malnourished patients: 117(20.21%), 110(19.0%) and 110 (19.0%) when using NFPE, FFMI, and HG respectively. With three different muscle assessment techniques, 10 different combinations of indicators in GLIM were retrieved. The combination of muscle loss, assessed through NFPE, with either one of the two etiologic criteria yielded the highest numbers of malnourished patients among all three techniques [NFPE + reduced food intake/assimilation: 113(19.52%) and NFPE + Inflammation: 117(20.21%)], while the use of FFMI resulted in the lowest [FFMI + reduced food intake/assimilation: 37(6.39%) and FFMI + Inflammation: 40(6.91%)]. All three tools, GLIM + NFPE, GLIM + FFMI, and GLIM + HG reported high specificity [98.9% (97.45–99.64), 99.1% (97.76–99.76) and 99.1% (97.78–99.76) respectively]. However, results revealed moderate sensitivity for GLIM + FFMI [89.8% (82.91–94.63)]and GLIM + HG [89.1% (82.04–94.05)] yet a high sensitivity for GLIM + NFPE [93.3% (87.29–97.08)]. ConclusionsThe combination of NFPE with either of the etiologic criteria identified more malnourished patients than the combinations including FFMI or HG. A high degree of validity was reported for all three muscle assessment tools in GLIM criterion. Funding SourcesNone.