AND-ASPEN and ESPEN consensus, and GLIM criteria for malnutrition identification in AECOPD patients: a longitudinal study comparing concurrent and predictive validity

Araújo, Bruna Espíndola de; Kowalski, Veronnike Hossa; Leites, Giovana Molon; Fink, Jaqueline da Silva; Silva, Flávia Moraes

doi:10.1038/s41430-021-01025-x

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also found that the different combinations of AND/ASPEN and GLIM diagnostic criteria report a high degree of validity, agreement, and reliability, whereas ESPEN diagnostic criteria reported only moderate validity and low agreement and reliability. Similarly, in a sample of patients with acute exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a recent study reported that AND/ASPEN revealed the best concordance and accuracy compared with the SGA 19 . Likewise, Burgel et al concluded that both the AND/ASPEN and GLIM criteria are considered accurate malnutrition diagnostic tools for inpatients 23 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…15 Studies have tested the validity of the diagnostic tool, GLIM, against different screening tools, including the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, SGA, MNA-SF, and NRS-2002. [15][16][17][18][19] However, data on the validity and reliability of different diagnostic tools are scarce across multiple settings, age groups, and medical diagnoses. 15,[18][19][20][21][22][23] Additionally, only a few studies utilized two or more of the diagnostic tools (AND/ASPEN, ESPEN, and GLIM).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[15][16][17][18][19] However, data on the validity and reliability of different diagnostic tools are scarce across multiple settings, age groups, and medical diagnoses. 15,[18][19][20][21][22][23] Additionally, only a few studies utilized two or more of the diagnostic tools (AND/ASPEN, ESPEN, and GLIM). 19,[22][23][24] To our knowledge, limited research aimed to validate and compare the combinations of indicators in the three diagnostic criteria.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15,[18][19][20][21][22][23] Additionally, only a few studies utilized two or more of the diagnostic tools (AND/ASPEN, ESPEN, and GLIM). 19,[22][23][24] To our knowledge, limited research aimed to validate and compare the combinations of indicators in the three diagnostic criteria. Thus, this study aims to determine the concurrent validity and reliability of different combinations of the three widely utilized diagnostic tools (AND/ASPEN, ESPEN, and GLIM) as compared with the validated and reliable nutrition screening tools (MNA-SF and NRS-2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

AND/ASPEN and the GLIM malnutrition diagnostic criteria have a high degree of criterion validity and reliability for the identification of malnutrition in a hospital setting: A single‐center prospective study

Chaar

Mattar

Khoury

2022

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Multiple malnutrition diagnostic tools are available in clinical practice, yet, evidence on their validity and reliability is limited. We aim to assess and compare the validity and reliability of the different combinations of indicators of the three most used diagnostic tools with two validated malnutrition screening tools. Methods: Nutrition risk screening was evaluated using the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) and the Nutrition Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002). Nutrition assessment was conducted using different combinations of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (AND/ASPEN), the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria. Concurrent criterion validity and inter-rater reliability of the overall and the different combinations of indicators in the diagnostic tools were evaluated and compared. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and Cohen kappa were calculated to determine tool validity and reliability. Results: The AND/ASPEN (132 [22.8%]) combination and GLIM-1 (133 [23.0%])(weight loss + compromised food intake) predicted the highest number of malnourished patients and reported a high degree of concurrent criterion validity, agreement, and reliability. On the contrary, overall ESPEN (using any combination) and GLIM-2 (reduced body mass index [BMI] + compromised food intake) reported only moderate criterion validity and low agreement and reliability. Conclusion:Different combinations of diagnostic criteria led to varying validity and reliability, with the lowest validation results rising from the combinations of indicators using BMI as a criterion for malnutrition diagnosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

AND/ASPEN and the GLIM malnutrition diagnostic criteria have a high degree of criterion validity and reliability for the identification of malnutrition in a hospital setting: A single‐center prospective study

Chaar

Mattar

Khoury

2022

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The prevalence of malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria was 47.8% in their study sample. However, the investigators did not perform screening tests in the first step of the diagnostic procedure, whichcould explain such high percentage of malnutrition [ 38 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Malnutrition, Sarcopenia, and Malnutrition-Sarcopenia Syndrome in Older Adults with COPD

Kaluźniak-Szymanowska

Krzymińska‐Siemaszko

Deskur-Śmielecka

et al. 2021

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of death in the world population. In addition to airflow obstruction, COPD is associated with multiple systemic manifestations, including impaired nutritional status or malnutrition and changes in body composition (low muscle mass, LMM). Poor nutritional status and sarcopenia in subjects with COPD leads to a worse prognosis and increases health-related costs. Data from previous studies indicate that 30–60% of subjects with COPD are malnourished, 20–40% have low muscle mass, and 15–21.6% have sarcopenia. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of malnutrition, sarcopenia, and malnutrition-sarcopenia syndrome in elderly subjects with COPD and investigate the relationship between COPD severity and these conditions.Patients and methods: A cross-sectional study involving 124 patients with stable COPD, aged ≥60, participating in a stationary pulmonary rehabilitation program. Nutritional status was assessed following the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria and sarcopenia with the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2) criteria. The results of pulmonary function tests and exercise capacity were obtained from the hospital database. Results: 22.6% of participants had malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria. Subjects with malnutrition had lower gait speed (p = 0.0112) and worse results of the Six Minute Walk Test. Sixteen participants (12.9%) had sarcopenia; 12 subjects with sarcopenia had concomitant malnutrition. The prevalence of severe and very severe obstruction (GOLD3/GOLD4) was 91.7%. It was significantly higher in patients with malnutrition-sarcopenia syndrome. Conclusions: Malnutrition was found in nearly one out of four subjects with COPD, while sarcopenia was one out of seven patients. About 10% of our study sample had malnutrition-sarcopenia syndrome. The prevalence of severe and very severe obstruction was significantly higher in patients with malnutrition-sarcopenia syndrome.

show abstract

When is enteral nutrition indicated?

Bechtold

Brown

Escuro

et al. 2022

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a vital component of nutrition around the world. EN allows for delivery of nutrients to those who cannot maintain adequate nutrition by oral intake alone. Common questions regarding EN are when to initiate and in what scenarios it is safe. The answers to these questions are often complex and require an evidence‐based approach. The Board of Directors of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) established an Enteral Nutrition Committtee to address the important questions surrounding the indications for EN. Consensus recommendations were established based on eight extremely clinically relevant questions regarding EN indications as deemed by the Enteral Nutrition Committee. These consensus recommendations may act as a guide for clinicians and stakeholders on difficult questions pertaining to indications for EN. This paper was approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.

show abstract

AND-ASPEN and ESPEN consensus, and GLIM criteria for malnutrition identification in AECOPD patients: a longitudinal study comparing concurrent and predictive validity

Cited by 16 publications

References 53 publications

AND/ASPEN and the GLIM malnutrition diagnostic criteria have a high degree of criterion validity and reliability for the identification of malnutrition in a hospital setting: A single‐center prospective study

AND/ASPEN and the GLIM malnutrition diagnostic criteria have a high degree of criterion validity and reliability for the identification of malnutrition in a hospital setting: A single‐center prospective study

Malnutrition, Sarcopenia, and Malnutrition-Sarcopenia Syndrome in Older Adults with COPD

When is enteral nutrition indicated?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About