Jackie O'Connor, Nicholas van Veenendaal, Rebecca Gallo, Hilda Griffin
{"title":"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。","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":"163-171"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"163-171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"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\":\"2024/12/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2024/12/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
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。
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.
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.
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.