Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background Malnutrition defined by the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) has been associated with cancer mortality, but the effect is limited and inconsistent. We performed this meta‐analysis aiming to assess this relationship in patients with cancer. Methods We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from January 1, 2019, to July 1, 2022. Studies evaluating the prognostic effect of GLIM‐defined malnutrition on cancer survival were included. A fixed‐effect model was fitted to estimate the combined hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% CI. Heterogeneity of studies was analyzed using the I 2 statistic. Quality assessment were performed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Results The search strategy identified 4378 articles in all databases combined. Nine studies (8829 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria were included for quantitative analysis. Meta‐analysis revealed significant associations between GLIM‐defined pooled malnutrition (HR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.43–2.15), moderate malnutrition (HR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.29–1.62), and severe malnutrition (HR = 1.79; 95% CI, 1.58–2.02) with all‐cause mortality. Sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of these associations. The between‐study heterogeneity was low (all I 2 6). The evidence quality according to the GRADE tool was very low. Conclusions Our meta‐analysis suggests a significant negative association of malnutrition, as defined by the GLIM, with overall survival in patients with cancer. However, definitive conclusions cannot be made, owing to the low quality of the source data.
Yin et al. (Sun,) studied this question.