RESUMO
The inconsistency of diagnostic criteria for malnutrition has confused clinicians since the 1980s. After the implementation of disease diagnosis related group payment (DRG) in China's public hospitals, the diagnosis of malnutrition and the correct documentation of nutrition-related diagnosis on the front sheet of medical records are related to the correct classification of the disease group and the medical insurance payment. Therefore, the reliable diagnostic criteria for malnutrition, especially disease-related malnutrition, is urgently needed in clinical practice. In September 2018, The global leadership Iinitiative on malnutrition (GLIM) diagnostic criteria consensus was launched. GLIM aimed to provide the explicit and unified diagnostic criteria for malnutrition in adult hospitalized patients. However, GLIM criteria was based on the voting by nutritional experts and was merely a consensus in nature. The clinical validity of GLIM criteria needs prospective verification, i.e., to demonstrate that patients with malnutrition as per GLIM criteria could have improved clinical outcomes with reasonable nutritional interventions. In November 2020, the article titled Nutritional support therapy after GLIM criteria may neglect the benefit of reducing infection complications compared with NRS 2002 was published on the journal Nutrition. It was the first study comparing nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS 2002) and GLIM malnutrition diagnostic criteria among Chinese patients for the indication of nutritional support therapy. The clinical effectiveness of the two tools was retrospectively verified as well. Here we discussed the key points of this retrospective study, including the critical research methods, to inform the currently ongoing prospective validation of the GLIM malnutrition diagnostic criteria (the item of reduced muscle mass not included).