ArticleJPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition2026
Nutritional screening within the GLIM procedure-Part 2: Operationalization of the concept risk of malnutrition using a modified Delphi procedure.
Article in JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nutritional screening within the GLIM procedure-Part 2: Operationalization of the concept risk of malnutrition using a modified Delphi procedure.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWithin the original GLIM procedure (2019), the step on nutritional screening was not further elaborated. A new GLIM Risk of Malnutrition Working Group has recently developed a consensus-based conceptual definition of "risk of malnutrition." The present study aimed to operationalize this definition.
methodsThis study consisted of: (1) a literature search to identify risk factors for malnutrition, and (2) a two-round online modified Delphi study. International professional experts (n = 113) in the field of malnutrition were invited to rate the importance of identified risk factors using a 9-point Likert scale. In questionnaire round 1, risk factors were rated "critically important" if ≥70% of the participants rated them 7-9, or "not important" if >30% rated them 1-3. The remaining risk factors were categorized as "undecided." In questionnaire round 2, undecided risk factors were classified as "critically important" or "important, but not critical," based on the same threshold.
resultsThe literature search revealed 64 risk factors that were included in the Delphi questionnaires. Of 113 invited experts, 57 responded to Delphi Round 1, and 46 responded to Delphi Round 2. Twenty-nine risk factors (from the overarching risk categories unintentional weight loss, nutrition impact symptoms, disease-related factors, physical factors, psychological factors, decreased food intake, food assimilation, and poor diet) were deemed "critically important," 10 "important, but not critical," and 19 "substantially important."
conclusionIn this study, we identified which risk factors are considered critical to operationalize "risk of malnutrition." Screening for risk of malnutrition should take these relevant risk factors into account.
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.