ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Validation of GLIM criteria for diagnosis of malnutrition in stroke survivors.
Article 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.
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.
- Malnutrition identified based on GLIM criteria and diet quality in post-stroke rehabilitation patients.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Validation of GLIM criteria for diagnosis of malnutrition in stroke survivors.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
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/objectives: Nutritional assessment is essential for delivering optimal care and achieving the best possible outcomes for stroke survivors. The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) proposed new consensus criteria for diagnosing malnutrition in 2018. These criteria are anticipated to effectively predict significant outcomes related to malnutrition. This study aims to validate the GLIM criteria as a diagnostic tool for malnutrition among Saudi stroke survivors, comparing it with the subjective global assessment (SGA). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 104 adult stroke survivors. Nutritional risk was first evaluated using the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) as an initial step of the GLIM criteria, followed by diagnosis using both the GLIM criteria and the SGA. The level of agreement between the tools was assessed using the kappa coefficient ( Results: A total of 104 stroke survivors were evaluated, with an average age of 61.0 years (interquartile range (IQR): 15 years), and 73.1% were men. According to the GLIM criteria, malnutrition was identified in 47.1% of the survivors, while the SGA indicated malnutrition in 51.9%. The GLIM criteria demonstrated acceptable performance, with an AUC of 0.819 (95% CI, 0.734-0.905), a sensitivity of 78.2%, and a specificity of 85.7%. The level of agreement between the two tools was substantial ( Conclusion: The GLIM criteria for diagnosing malnutrition showed good criterion validity and appear to be a reliable approach for assessing nutritional status among stroke survivors.
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.