4.7 Article

Malnutrition-Inflammation Score VS Phase Angle in the Era of GLIM Criteria: A Cross-Sectional Study among Hemodialysis Patients in UAE

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11112771

Keywords

malnutrition; malnutrition-inflammation score; phase angle; Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition

Funding

  1. Zayed University, Dubai, UAE
  2. SECA GMBH Co. Kg, Dubai, UAE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

(1) Background: Malnutrition is prevalent in hemodialysis (HD) patients and is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of malnutrition using the malnutrition-inflammation score (MIS) and phase angle (PhA) and compare their concordance with the new Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition. (2) Methods: Seventy HD patients were assessed. Malnutrition was diagnosed based on the GLIM criteria and MIS questionnaire. The agreement between the diagnostic tools (MIS, PhA derived from the bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and GLIM criteria) was assessed. The optimal gender-specific cutoff points were identified for the PhA according to the GLIM criteria. (3) Results: Almost half of the sample was diagnosed as malnourished according to the MIS (48.57%) and GLIM criteria (54.29%). A fair agreement was observed between the GLIM criteria, MIS (k = 0.202), and PhA (k = 0.279) among the malnourished patients. The PhA had better sensitivity but worse specificity compared to the MIS. The optimum cutoff points of PhA to detect malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria were a PhA value of <= 5.7 degrees for males and <= 3.8 degrees for females. (4) Conclusion: The MIS performed slightly better than PhA in the diagnosis of malnutrition among HD patients within the spectrum of the GLIM criteria.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available