ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Concurrent validity of GLIM criteria in nutritional assessment of surgical patients with colorectal Cancer.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Malnutrition affects outcomes in surgical treatment of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) proposed a framework of diagnostic criteria, but it needs validation in different settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the concurrent validity of GLIM criteria-across all 21 phenotypic-etiologic combinations-against a standard (modified Subjective Global Assessment, mSGA) in surgical patients with CRC. Methods: Prospective cohort of 105 adults scheduled for elective CRC surgery (June 2023-June 2024). Nutritional risk was screened with Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002). Nutritional status was assessed by mSGA and by GLIM across all 21 combinations. Agreement and classification differences were tested using McNemar's test and Cohen's Kappa; sensitivity and specificity of GLIM (vs mSGA) were calculated. Bootstrap procedures supported inference. Results: Overall, GLIM classified 55.2% of patients as malnourished vs. 31.4% by mSGA. McNemar's test indicated a significant difference in classification ( Discussion: In elective CRC surgery, several GLIM combinations- particularly P1EA, P12EA, P13EA, and P123EA -show meaningful agreement with mSGA and may offer a more straightforward, pragmatic approach to identify malnutrition preoperatively. Adoption of these combinations could streamline assessment and support timely perioperative nutritional interventions. Larger multicenter studies should confirm these findings and determine predictive value for clinical outcomes.
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.