ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2025
Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition: a bibliometric analysis of research trends and contributions (2018-2024).
Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The global state of GLIM criteria in oncology: a bibliometric analysis of research trends (2019-2025).Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- An Inflammation-Adjusted Framework for Nutritional Assessment in Multimorbid Patients with Advanced Neurological Diseases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria were officially introduced in 2018 with the aim of establishing a standardized global framework for the diagnosis of malnutrition. Synthesizing expert consensus from multiple international organizations, the GLIM criteria proposed a two-step diagnostic model integrating both phenotypic and etiologic components. Although GLIM-related research has expanded rapidly in recent years, a comprehensive bibliometric evaluation remains absent. Methods: Relevant literature published between 2018 and 2024 was retrieved from the Scopus database. Only English-language original research articles and reviews were included. A total of 729 eligible publications were analyzed using VOSviewer (v1.6.10), CiteSpace (v5.8.R3), and the online platform Bioinformatics. The analysis covered various dimensions, including countries, institutions, authors, journals, keywords, and highly cited references. Results: The volume of GLIM-related publications has shown a steady upward trajectory, peaking in 2024. China emerged as the most prolific country, followed by Spain and Japan. The top contributing institutions included Uppsala University, Capital Medical University, and Beijing Shijitan Hospital. Among the most productive authors were Cederholm T, Shi H, and Correia MITD. Conclusion: This study represents the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of research related to the GLIM criteria. It identifies key contributors, collaboration networks, and thematic evolutions in the field, highlighting a transition from the development of diagnostic frameworks to clinical application and individualized nutritional assessment. These findings provide a valuable reference for guiding future research directions in GLIM-related domains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.