GLIM Achieves Best Diagnostic Performance in Non-Cancer Patients with Low BMI: A Hierarchical Bayesian Latent-Class Meta-Analysis

被引:1
作者
Wu, Tiantian [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zhou, Mingming [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Xu, Kedi [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zou, Yuanlin [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zhang, Shaobo [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Cheng, Haoqing [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Guo, Pengxia [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Song, Chunhua [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Zhengzhou Univ, Coll Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol & Stat, Kexue Rd 100, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan, Peoples R China
[2] Zhengzhou Univ, Henan Key Lab Tumor Epidemiol, Zhengzhou 450052, Henan, Peoples R China
[3] Zhengzhou Univ, State Key Lab Esophageal Canc Prevent & Treatment, Zhengzhou 450052, Henan, Peoples R China
关键词
malnutrition; GLIM; PG-SGA; sensitivity; specificity; PG-SGA; CANCER-PATIENTS; MALNUTRITION CRITERIA; LATIN-AMERICA; TEST ACCURACY; VALIDATION; VALIDITY; TOOL; ASSOCIATION; PREVALENCE;
D O I
10.1093/nutrit/nuae096
中图分类号
R15 [营养卫生、食品卫生]; TS201 [基础科学];
学科分类号
100403 ;
摘要
Context: Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) are commonly used nutrition assessment tools, whose performance does not reach a consensus due to different and imperfect reference standards. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of GLIM and PG-SGA, using a hierarchical Bayesian latent class model, in the absence of a gold standard. Data Sources: A systematic search was undertaken in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to October 2022. Diagnostic test studies comparing (1) the GLIM and/or (2) PG-SGA with "semi-gold" standard assessment tools for malnutrition were included. Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted data on sensitivity, specificity, and other key characteristics. The methodological quality of each included study was appraised according to the criteria in the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Data Analysis: A total of 45 studies, comprising 20 876 individuals evaluated for GLIM and 11 575 for PG-SGA, were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.833 (95% CI 0.744 to 0.896) for GLIM and 0.874 (0.797 to 0.925) for PG-SGA, while the pooled specificity was 0.837 (0.780 to 0.882) for GLIM and 0.778 (0.707 to 0.836) for PG-SGA. GLIM showed slightly better performance than PG-SGA, with a higher diagnostic odds ratio (25.791 vs 24.396). The diagnostic performance of GLIM was most effective in non-cancer patients with an average body mass index (BMI) of <24 kg/m(2), followed by non-cancer patients with an average age of >= 60 years. PG-SGA was most powerful in cancer patients with an average age of <60 years, followed by cancer patients with an average BMI of <24 kg/m(2). Conclusion: Both GLIM and PG-SGA had moderately high diagnostic capabilities. GLIM was most effective in non-cancer patients with a low BMI, while PG-SGA was more applicable in cancer patients.
引用
收藏
页码:e877 / e891
页数:15
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [21] Diagnostic Performance of Fluorine 18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Imaging for Detection of Primary Lesion and Staging of Endometrial Cancer Patients Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature
    Kakhki, Vahid Reza Dabbagh
    Shahriari, Sara
    Treglia, Giorgio
    Hasanzadeh, Malihe
    Zakavi, Seyed Rasoul
    Yousefi, Zohreh
    Kadkhodayan, Sima
    Sadeghi, Ramin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2013, 23 (09) : 1536 - 1543
  • [22] Urine-Based Biomarker Test Uromonitor® in the Detection and Disease Monitoring of Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Performance
    Kravchuk, Anton P.
    Wolff, Ingmar
    Gilfrich, Christian
    Wirtz, Ralph M.
    Soares, Paula
    Braun, Kay-Patrick
    Brookman-May, Sabine D.
    Kollitsch, Lisa
    Hauner, Katharina
    Burchardt, Martin
    Bruendl, Johannes
    Burger, Maximilian
    May, Matthias
    CANCERS, 2024, 16 (04)
  • [23] Diagnostic Performance of [18F]F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non-Ophthalmic Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 10,000 Melanoma Patients
    Zamani-Siahkali, Nazanin
    Mirshahvalad, Seyed Ali
    Pirich, Christian
    Beheshti, Mohsen
    CANCERS, 2024, 16 (01)
  • [24] Diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) quantitative parameters for detecting metastatic cervical lymph nodes in patients with papillary thyroid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Luyao
    Li, Yize
    Chen, Ziqi
    Dai, Xinpeng
    Gao, Huimin
    Chen, Yingmin
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2025, 183
  • [25] Head-to-head comparison of prostate MRI using an endorectal coil versus a non-endorectal coil: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance in staging T3 prostate cancer
    Tirumani, S. H.
    Suh, C. H.
    Kim, K. W.
    Shinagare, A. B.
    Ramaiya, N. H.
    Fennessy, F. M.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 75 (02) : 157.e9 - 157.e19
  • [26] Breast-specific gamma camera imaging with 99mTc-MIBI has better diagnostic performance than magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer patients: A meta-analysis
    Zhang, Aimi
    Li, Panli
    Liu, Qiufang
    Song, Shaoli
    HELLENIC JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2017, 20 (01) : 26 - 35
  • [27] Diagnostic Performance of Radiolabeled Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Primary Lymph Node Staging in Newly Diagnosed Intermediate to High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Kim, Seong-Jang
    Lee, Sang-Woo
    Ha, Hong Koo
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2019, 102 (01) : 27 - 36
  • [28] Performance of Narrow Band Imaging (NBI) and Photodynamic Diagnosis (PDD) Fluorescence Imaging Compared to White Light Cystoscopy (WLC) in Detecting Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Lesion-Level Diagnostic Meta-Analysis
    Russo, Giorgio I.
    Sholklapper, Tamir N.
    Cocci, Andrea
    Broggi, Giuseppe
    Caltabiano, Rosario
    Smith, Angela B.
    Lotan, Yair
    Morgia, Giuseppe
    Kamat, Ashish M.
    Witjes, J. Alfred
    Daneshmand, Siamak
    Desai, Mihir M.
    Gill, Indebir S.
    Cacciamani, Giovanni E.
    CANCERS, 2021, 13 (17)