Criterion validity of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria for malnutrition diagnosis compared with the Subjective Global Assessment: Results from a large observational study.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition & Dietetics Pub Date : 2024-12-08 DOI:10.1111/1747-0080.12917
Jackie O'Connor, Nicholas van Veenendaal, Rebecca Gallo, Hilda Griffin
{"title":"Criterion validity of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria for malnutrition diagnosis compared with the Subjective Global Assessment: Results from a large observational study.","authors":"Jackie O'Connor, Nicholas van Veenendaal, Rebecca Gallo, Hilda Griffin","doi":"10.1111/1747-0080.12917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria compared to the subjective global assessment in a diverse inpatient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study was a retrospective analysis of point prevalence audit data. The prevalence of malnutrition determined by the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria was compared to the Subjective Global Assessment. Validity statistics were determined using all of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria concurrently as well as each pair that could be used to diagnose malnutrition. Subgroup analysis was undertaken based on severe malnutrition, treatment group, age and body mass index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine hundred and eighty-one patients were included (65.1 ± 18.6 years, 54.8% male). The prevalence of malnutrition was 36.7% using the Subjective Global Assessment and 36.1% using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. More patients were classified as severely malnourished using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria (9.8% vs. 6.0%), whilst more rehabilitation patients were classified as malnourished using the Subjective Global Assessment (42.2% vs. 33.6%). The criterion validity of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria was good, with a sensitivity of 92.5% (95% CI 90.9-94.2) and specificity of 96.6% (95% CI 95.5-97.8). There was a downward trend in sensitivity with increasing body mass index and a lower sensitivity in the rehabilitation population. The criterion validity was fair at best when each pair of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria was considered independently of other criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When all criteria are considered concurrently, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria present good criterion validity and can be applied in clinical practice to diagnose malnutrition.</p>","PeriodicalId":19368,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Dietetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12917","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria compared to the subjective global assessment in a diverse inpatient population.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was a retrospective analysis of point prevalence audit data. The prevalence of malnutrition determined by the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria was compared to the Subjective Global Assessment. Validity statistics were determined using all of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria concurrently as well as each pair that could be used to diagnose malnutrition. Subgroup analysis was undertaken based on severe malnutrition, treatment group, age and body mass index.

Results: Nine hundred and eighty-one patients were included (65.1 ± 18.6 years, 54.8% male). The prevalence of malnutrition was 36.7% using the Subjective Global Assessment and 36.1% using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. More patients were classified as severely malnourished using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria (9.8% vs. 6.0%), whilst more rehabilitation patients were classified as malnourished using the Subjective Global Assessment (42.2% vs. 33.6%). The criterion validity of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria was good, with a sensitivity of 92.5% (95% CI 90.9-94.2) and specificity of 96.6% (95% CI 95.5-97.8). There was a downward trend in sensitivity with increasing body mass index and a lower sensitivity in the rehabilitation population. The criterion validity was fair at best when each pair of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria was considered independently of other criteria.

Conclusions: When all criteria are considered concurrently, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria present good criterion validity and can be applied in clinical practice to diagnose malnutrition.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
营养不良全球领导倡议与主观全球评估对营养不良诊断标准的有效性比较:来自一项大型观察性研究的结果。
目的:本研究旨在评估营养不良问题全球领导力倡议标准与主观全球评估在不同住院人群中的标准有效性:这项横断面研究是对点流行率审计数据的回顾性分析。根据营养不良全球领导力倡议标准确定的营养不良患病率与主观全面评估进行了比较。同时使用营养不良问题全球领导力倡议的所有标准以及可用于诊断营养不良的每一对标准来确定有效性统计。根据严重营养不良、治疗组、年龄和体重指数进行了分组分析:共纳入 981 名患者(65.1 ± 18.6 岁,54.8% 为男性)。采用主观全面评估法得出的营养不良发生率为 36.7%,采用全球领导力营养不良倡议标准得出的营养不良发生率为 36.1%。使用营养不良问题全球领导力倡议标准将更多患者归类为严重营养不良(9.8% 对 6.0%),而使用主观全面评估将更多康复患者归类为营养不良(42.2% 对 33.6%)。营养不良全球领导力倡议标准的标准有效性良好,灵敏度为 92.5%(95% CI 90.9-94.2),特异性为 96.6%(95% CI 95.5-97.8)。随着体重指数的增加,灵敏度呈下降趋势,康复人群的灵敏度较低。如果将营养不良问题全球领导力倡议的每对标准与其他标准分开考虑,标准有效性充其量只能算一般:当同时考虑所有标准时,营养不良全球领导力倡议标准具有良好的标准有效性,可用于临床实践中诊断营养不良。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition & Dietetics
Nutrition & Dietetics 医学-营养学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.10%
发文量
69
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition & Dietetics is the official journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Covering all aspects of food, nutrition and dietetics, the Journal provides a forum for the reporting, discussion and development of scientifically credible knowledge related to human nutrition and dietetics. Widely respected in Australia and around the world, Nutrition & Dietetics publishes original research, methodology analyses, research reviews and much more. The Journal aims to keep health professionals abreast of current knowledge on human nutrition and diet, and accepts contributions from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Changes in food behaviours during the first COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Australia. Reported foodservice environmental sustainability practices in Australian healthcare and aged care services pre and post the onset of COVID-19. Criterion validity of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria for malnutrition diagnosis compared with the Subjective Global Assessment: Results from a large observational study. Exploring the relationship between vitamin C deficiency and protein-energy malnutrition in adult hospitalised patients: A cross-sectional study. Creating a food environment scoring index for online food delivery outlets: Delphi study with Australian nutrition and public health professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1