Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:47:16.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Challenges in identifying malnutrition in obesity; An overview of the state of the art and directions for future research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2024

Natasha Nalucha Mwala
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Lifestyle, School of Allied Health, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Department of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Jos W. Borkent
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Lifestyle, School of Allied Health, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Department of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Barbara S. van der Meij
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Lifestyle, School of Allied Health, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Department of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands Bond University Nutrition and Dietetics Research Group, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
Marian A.E. de van der Schueren*
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Lifestyle, School of Allied Health, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Department of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author: Marian A.E. de van der Schueren, email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

(Protein–energy) malnutrition in individuals living with obesity presents complex diagnostic challenges due to the distinctive physiological characteristics of obesity. This narrative review critically examines the identification of malnutrition within the population with obesity, distinguishing malnutrition in obesity from related conditions such as sarcopenic obesity. While noting some shared features, the review highlights key differences between these conditions. The review also highlights the limitations of current malnutrition screening tools, which are not designed for individuals living with obesity. These tools primarily rely on anthropometric measurements, neglecting (among others) nutrient intake assessment, which hinders accurate malnutrition detection. Additionally, this review discusses limitations in existing diagnostic criteria, including the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, when applied to individuals living with obesity. Challenges include the identification of appropriate cut-off values for phenotypic criteria (unintentional weight loss, low body mass index and muscle mass) and aetiological criteria such as reduced food intake and inflammation for the population with obesity. Overall, this review emphasises the need for modified screening tools and diagnostic criteria to recognise and assess malnutrition in obesity, leading to improved clinical outcomes and overall wellbeing.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Introduction

In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the impact of disease-related malnutrition on both healthcare systems and patient outcomes(Reference Schuetz, Seres and Lobo1). Malnutrition is associated with higher hospital costs, prolonged length of stay, increased care burden, slower recovery and lower quality of life(Reference Kruizenga, van Keeken and Weijs2Reference Freijer, Tan and Koopmanschap4). The prevalence of malnutrition varies among different populations, depending on the screening and diagnostic tools used, care setting, country and region, with estimates ranging from 10% to 50%(Reference Barker, Gout and Crowe3,Reference Meijers, Halfens and van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren5Reference de van der Schueren, Borkent and Spaans7) . Higher rates are often observed in specialised fields such as geriatrics, oncology and critical care units where patients are more vulnerable to nutritional deficiencies(Reference de van der Schueren, Borkent and Spaans7Reference Böhne, Hiesmayr and Sulz9). Thus, addressing malnutrition is important in preventing outcomes resulting from altered body composition, including unintentional weight loss and reduced muscle mass and function, greatly impacting overall wellbeing(Reference Landi, Camprubi-Robles and Bear10,Reference Saunders and Smith11) .

Malnutrition is a broad term comprising several forms such as micronutrient deficiencies and protein–energy malnutrition (PEM), with conditions like overweight and obesity (hereinafter referred to as ‘obesity’) also being considered as a state of nutritional imbalance(Reference Saunders and Smith11,Reference van der Pols-Vijlbrief, Wijnhoven and Schaap12) . Despite these forms all having their causes and expressions, they share the underlying problem of an imbalance between energy and/or nutrient intake and requirements(Reference Wijnhoven, Schilp and van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren13,Reference Gangadharan, Choi and Hassan14) . Most importantly, the presence of one form of malnutrition does not exclude the presence of another.

The presence of different types of malnutrition manifesting simultaneously is called the double burden of malnutrition (DBM)(Reference Wells, Sawaya and Wibaek15,Reference Claudia and Roger16) . This can occur between different individuals in one living community, between different stages of life within one individual and for different forms of malnutrition that are present within one individual at the same time(17). In this latter form, DBM mostly refers to individuals living with obesity who are suffering from micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries(Reference Kaidar-Person, Person and Szomstein18,Reference Sánchez, Rojas and Basfi-Fer19) . However, considering the nutrition-related problems in Western society, DBM comprises the coexistence of PEM and obesity(Reference Ness, Hickling and Bell20). Identifying PEM in individuals living with obesity becomes particularly challenging, as the excess weight associated with obesity can mask conventional indicators of PEM, such as involuntary weight loss and underweight.

In Western society, the identification of malnutrition has focused on undernutrition due to disease-related malnutrition and its consequences(Reference Davidson and Smith21). Thus, existing screening and assessment tools and the phenotypic criteria for malnutrition often rely on parameters such as unintentional weight loss, low body mass index (BMI) and reduced muscle mass(Reference Kaiser22Reference Kruizenga, Seidell and De Vet25). The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, for example, define malnutrition as the presence of at least one phenotypic criterion (unintentional weight loss, low BMI or reduced muscle mass) and at least one aetiologic criterion (reduced energy intake or disease burden/inflammation), indicating an imbalance between energy and/or nutritional intake and requirements with implications for body composition, function and clinical outcomes(Reference Cederholm, Jensen and Correia26).

However, these parameters may not effectively capture malnutrition in individuals living with obesity. For instance, underweight (defined as BMI <18·5 kg/m2) is unsuitable for identifying malnutrition in this group(27Reference Bell, Pulle and Lee29). Furthermore, traditional cut-off values for unintentional weight loss and reduced muscle mass might not be applicable, given the distinct body composition of individuals living with obesity in comparison with those with a normal BMI(Reference Bosy-Westphal and Müller30). Similarly, aetiological criteria such as decreased appetite and reduced food intake might require adjusted cut-off values for individuals living with obesity.

To warrant an early identification and improve treatment opportunities, more knowledge is needed on the specific problem of malnutrition in obesity. Therefore, the objective of this narrative review is to delve into the identification of malnutrition in individuals living with obesity. This review aims to distinguish malnutrition among individuals living with obesity from the closely related clinical condition of sarcopenic obesity, discuss the difficulties in diagnosing malnutrition in this context, evaluate the limitations of current malnutrition screening tools and assessment criteria, and propose recommendations for further research. By addressing these key aspects, this review seeks to deepen the understanding of malnutrition in individuals living with obesity. It emphasises the importance of implementing more effective screening and assessment approaches to identify and support individuals living with obesity at risk of malnutrition.

The difference between sarcopenic obesity and malnutrition in obesity

Sarcopenic obesity and malnutrition in obesity share some similarities but also exhibit distinct characteristics. Sarcopenic obesity is defined by the coexistence of obesity (high fat mass) and sarcopenia (low muscle functionality and altered body composition)(Reference Donini, Busetto and Bischoff3134). In contrast, malnutrition in obesity refers to undernutrition related to specific energy or nutrient deficiencies (such as PEM) within the context of obesity(Reference Saunders and Smith11,34) .

Despite common factors like high fat mass, reduced muscle mass, systemic inflammation and consequences such as a higher risk of morbidity and mortality(Reference Donini, Busetto and Bauer33), recognising the differences between the two conditions is important. Malnutrition in obesity encompasses a broader range of nutritional deficiencies, including unintentionally reduced energy and/or nutrient intake leading to weight loss, setting it apart from sarcopenic obesity(Reference van der Pols-Vijlbrief, Wijnhoven and Schaap12). Sarcopenic obesity manifests in two forms: age-related (primary) and disease-related (secondary). Both involve a decline in muscle function and altered body composition, which may not necessarily be attributed to nutritional deficiencies(Reference Cruz-Jentoft, Bahat and Bauer35,Reference Muscaritoli, Anker and Argilés36) . Figure 1 illustrates the key characteristics of sarcopenic obesity and malnutrition in obesity, effectively highlighting their differences and similarities.

Fig. 1. Differences and similarities of sarcopenic obesity and malnutrition in obesity.

A notable difference between these conditions lies in their prevalence across different age groups. Although sarcopenic obesity, particularly the secondary form, associated with specific comorbidities such as cancer or rheumatoid arthritis, can occur in individuals under 65 years, the primary form is more prevalent and particularly observed in those aged 65 and older(Reference Cruz-Jentoft, Bahat and Bauer35,Reference Carneiro, Mazurak and Prado37,Reference Gupta and Kumar38) . Sarcopenic obesity in the elderly is mainly attributed to age-related hormonal changes that can lead to a decrease in hormones critical for maintaining muscle mass, such as insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and oestrogen(Reference Cruz-Jentoft, Bahat and Bauer35,Reference Cruz-Jentoft, Baeyens and Bauer39) . In contrast, malnutrition in obesity can occur across the lifespan, affecting individuals of different ages(Reference Wells, Sawaya and Wibaek15,17,Reference Bird, Murphy and Ciappio40) .

Another difference between sarcopenic obesity and malnutrition in obesity is the focus on muscle function. While both conditions commonly exhibit reduced muscle mass and function, the algorithm for defining sarcopenic obesity prioritises muscle function over muscle mass(Reference Landi, Camprubi-Robles and Bear10,Reference Gortan Cappellari, Guillet and Poggiogalle32) . Additionally, impaired physical performance is integral to the definition(Reference Donini, Busetto and Bauer33). Diagnostic procedures for sarcopenic obesity begin with an assessment of skeletal muscle function, followed by an assessment of body composition. The confirmation of the diagnosis involves identifying the presence of excess adiposity and low skeletal muscle mass or related body compartments(Reference Cruz-Jentoft, Baeyens and Bauer39,Reference Cederholm, Barazzoni and Austin41) .

Furthermore, a difference emerges in the screening and assessment approaches for these two conditions. For sarcopenic obesity, a diagnostic procedure has already been proposed. This starts with screening by evaluating high fat mass through measures such as BMI and waist circumference, along with surrogate markers for sarcopenia. The subsequent diagnosis then includes an analysis of muscle function and body composition(Reference Donini, Busetto and Bischoff31). In contrast, there are no specific screening or assessment tools available for identifying malnutrition within obesity. Despite the existence of screening and assessment methods for sarcopenic obesity, a notable similarity arises: the absence of specific cut-offs for both conditions. The Sarcopenic Obesity Global Initiative (SOGLI) expert panel has recognised the lack of specific cut-offs for sarcopenic obesity and formulated research questions to further define muscle function and body composition measures for sarcopenic obesity(Reference Gortan Cappellari, Guillet and Poggiogalle32,42) . Meanwhile, the group supports the use of BMI and waist circumference cut-offs while recognising their limitations. Similarly, cut-offs for muscle function and muscle mass have been suggested, with a recommendation to adopt them from previous studies(Reference Dodds, Syddall and Cooper43Reference Batsis, Barre and Mackenzie47). This highlights the need for future research to define optimal cut-off points for application in both research and clinical practice for sarcopenic obesity, as well as for screening and assessing malnutrition in overweight and obesity, where defined cut-off points are currently non-existent.

The challenge with diagnosing malnutrition in obesity

Despite the widespread use of the GLIM criteria for diagnosing malnutrition, challenges arise when applying these criteria to patients with obesity. The phenotypic criterion of low BMI is not useful in individuals living with obesity(Reference Dickerson, Andromalos and Brown28). Moreover, the suggested cut-off values for recent weight loss and reduced muscle mass in the GLIM guidelines may also not be applicable for individuals living with obesity as these cut-off points are established in studies with individuals with a normal BMI(Reference Cederholm, Jensen and Correia26,Reference Correia, Tappenden and Malone48) .

Weight loss can be defined and reported using different measures, including percentage weight loss, changes in weight in kilograms and changes in BMI (kg/m2)(Reference Deitel, Gawdat and Melissas49). In the GLIM criteria, unintentional weight loss is specifically defined and reported as a percentage of an individual’s usual weight(Reference Cederholm, Jensen and Correia26). This choice can lead to major differences when interpreting weight loss outcomes, especially in the context of obesity, with a pronounced impact on individuals living with obesity. To illustrate this, let us consider two individuals with different body weights. A weight loss of 3 kg may greatly impact an individual weighing 60 kg, representing a 5% reduction in body weight, which is considered clinically relevant if assumed over 3 months(Reference Douketis, Macie and Thabane50). However, in an individual weighing 160 kg, the same 3 kg weight loss would represent only a 1·9% reduction in body weight, which may not be as clinically relevant. This discrepancy highlights how using percentages for weight loss in individuals living with obesity may require a considerable number of kilograms lost before reaching the threshold for malnutrition diagnosis, making it challenging to accurately assess malnutrition risk in this population.

In individuals living with obesity, involuntary weight loss impacts all-cause mortality, but the severity is less pronounced than in individuals with normal weight and underweight(Reference De Stefani, Pietraroia and Fernandes-Silva51). Research indicates that ±5% involuntary weight loss in a population with obesity, unlike that in a population with a normal BMI, is not associated with increased mortality, and higher weight loss percentages might be more indicative of malnutrition risk(Reference Aldahhan, Motawei and Al-Hariri52). NHANES data reveal that weight loss beyond 15% increases mortality risk in individuals living with obesity, with no significant association for losses between 5% and −15%, except among women who are overweight(Reference Ingram and Mussolino53). Hospitalised patients’ data (from the nutritionDay data collection) reinforces this, showing that mortality risk increases with weight loss across all BMI categories, but in the BMI category above 30 kg/m2, this becomes significant only when the loss exceeds 12·6%(Reference Barazzoni, Sulz and Schindler54). Additionally, distinguishing between fat and muscle mass loss during weight loss is important, given the increased risk of conditions like sarcopenia associated with muscle mass loss(Reference Cava, Yeat and Mittendorfer55). Furthermore, malnutrition diagnostic criteria that investigate unintentional weight loss may also face challenges in assessing malnutrition in patients with obesity. Due to the desire for weight loss among many individuals living with obesity, they may engage in unhealthy weight loss practices and not report weight loss as unintentional, possibly leading to an increased malnutrition risk that goes unnoticed(Reference Dickerson, Andromalos and Brown28,Reference Barazzoni, Breda and Cuerda56) .

Assessing muscle mass is vital in nutritional assessment for individuals living with obesity but presents specific challenges. Studies suggest that a higher BMI is associated with a higher muscle mass due to the additional weight, comprising both fat and muscle(Reference Cava, Yeat and Mittendorfer55,Reference Tallis, James and Seebacher57) . This association can lead to an overestimation of muscle mass when using methods like upper-arm or calf circumference, as excess fat can distort measurements, potentially underdiagnosing malnutrition(Reference Sizoo, de Heide and Emous58). To address this, there have been proposals for age and BMI-specific cut-off points for calf circumference(Reference Gonzalez, Mehrnezhad and Razaviarab59). Furthermore, techniques such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and computed tomography (CT) scans have a weight limitation, that is, the maximum body weight that the equipment is designed to accommodate while still providing accurate results. This limitation can pose difficulties in obtaining precise measurements in individuals living with obesity. Bio-electric impedance (BIA) measurements are less reliable in this population due to the overestimation of fat-free mass (FFM) by BIA equations, probably explained by a higher hydration of FFM in adipose tissue(Reference Jensen, Braun and Geisler60). Conversely, ultrasonography shows potential as a non-invasive and accessible technique for accurately evaluating muscle mass and its characteristics in individuals living with obesity. However, challenges such as a lack of standardisation need to be addressed for its full integration into clinical practice(Reference Simó-Servat, Ibarra and Libran61).

Additionally, these techniques can also misclassify reduced muscle mass within obesity, where the difference between muscle mass in absolute terms (kg) and relative terms (%) is high(Reference Sizoo, de Heide and Emous58,Reference Kyle, Bosaeus and De Lorenzo62Reference Brownbill and Ilich64) . Since cut-off values are based on absolute terms, individuals living with obesity may have a relatively low muscle–fat ratio but still possess a relatively high muscle amount in kg, especially with high adipose tissue. Thus, many individuals could exceed the cut-off for reduced muscle mass, potentially escaping malnutrition diagnosis(Reference Kruizenga, Seidell and De Vet25).

Applying the GLIM aetiologic criterion of low food intake (a 50% reduced food intake cut-off) in individuals living with obesity presents challenges(Reference Cederholm, Jensen and Correia26). Bariatric surgery, especially gastric sleeve surgery, has gained popularity as an alternative treatment for obesity, particularly in those with morbid obesity (BMI >40 kg/m2)(Reference Gulinac, Miteva and Peshevska-Sekulovska65). However, this surgery has implications for the dietary intake of individuals with obesity, resulting in a decrease in nutrient intake and absorption, potentially compromising accurate screening of the GLIM criterion related to food intake(Reference Mohapatra, Gangadharan and Pitchumoni66). Moreover, this criterion may not accurately reflect inadequate nutrient intake in individuals living with obesity due to their higher nutritional requirements based on their higher body weight(Reference Kaidar-Person, Person and Szomstein18). Based on literature, the most reliable energy intake data indicate high levels, exceeding 4000 kcal/d (16,736 kJ/d) for individuals maintaining weight stability at the highest levels of morbid obesity(Reference Harbury, Verbruggen and Callister67). Thus, a 50% intake reduction in this population remains a substantial intake. Furthermore, determining the appropriate cut-off values for reduced food intake in individuals living with obesity accustomed to overeating is challenging. This is due to their different eating patterns and nutritional requirements compared with those with healthy body weights(Reference James68).

Inflammation triggers increased protein turnover, which leads to the loss of muscle mass, strength and function(Reference Costamagna, Costelli and Sampaolesi69). For this reason, inflammation has been incorporated into the aetiologic criteria of the GLIM definition(Reference Cederholm, Jensen and Correia26). Determining suitable thresholds for disease burden and inflammation in individuals living with obesity remains uncertain. Obesity often involves a mild, chronic inflammation driven by adipose tissue releasing pro-inflammatory cytokines(Reference Calder, Ahluwalia and Brouns70), consequently increasing C-reactive protein (CRP) levels(Reference Monteiro and Azevedo71). An individual meets the GLIM aetiologic criterion of inflammation if they show repeated CRP levels above 3·0 mg/L(Reference Cederholm, Jensen and Ballesteros-Pomar72). In individuals with metabolic syndrome, obesity primarily drives CRP elevation, typically exceeding 1·0 mg/L, indicating inflammation(Reference Aronson, Bartha and Zinder73). Thus, many individuals living with obesity would meet the GLIM criteria’s inflammation aetiologic criterion, potentially resulting in false positives due to the prevalent low-grade inflammation in obesity(Reference Kruizenga, de Vet and Van Marissing74). The applicability of the provided guidance for the GLIM criteria’s inflammation aetiologic criterion may vary within the population with obesity due to the variability of obesity-related inflammation, influenced by factors such as obesity duration, genetic predisposition and underlying health conditions(Reference Wijnhoven, Schilp and van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren13).

Moreover, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted major differences in disease outcomes as a result of systemic inflammation stemming from pre-existing conditions in patients such as diabetes and obesity(Reference Buicu, Cernea and Benedek75). The guidance for the GLIM criteria’s inflammation aetiologic criterion outlines a categorised list of example diseases based on inflammation levels ranging from mild to severe(Reference Cederholm, Jensen and Ballesteros-Pomar72). The risks of these diseases might be different between individuals living with obesity and those who do not live with obesity, with individuals living with obesity carrying higher risks of severe consequences(Reference Aghili, Ebrahimpur and Arjmand76).

Obesity can alter disease experiences, potentially worsening disease severity due to factors such as compromised immune function, increased disease risk, additional stress on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems and limited treatment effectiveness(Reference Kalligeros, Shehadeh and Mylona77,Reference Hruby and Hu78) . This can result from altered pharmacokinetics and potential side effects of disease treatments, such as chemotherapy(Reference Purcell, Kok and Ketterl79,Reference Smit, De Hoogd and Brüggemann80) . Consequently, managing chronic conditions becomes more challenging as surgical risks increase and certain diseases such as congestive heart failure, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis may progress faster in the presence of obesity(Reference Barazzoni, Bischoff and Boirie81).

In summary, both the phenotypical and aetiological aspects of the widely accepted GLIM criteria for diagnosing malnutrition may not fully address the complexities of diagnosing malnutrition in the context of individuals living with obesity as the cut-off and threshold values used are not specifically tailored for the population with obesity. Further research and adaptations of the criteria should aim at integrating adapted cut-off values within the GLIM criteria to also suit the specific nutritional challenges faced by individuals living with obesity, similar to the approach taken with ethnicity-specific cut-offs. The current reference values in the GLIM criteria may not be entirely applicable to this population, warranting further investigation and modification to accurately identify and diagnose malnutrition in individuals living with obesity.

The challenge with current malnutrition screening tools

The foundation of malnutrition diagnosis according to the GLIM criteria relies on the use of a validated screening tool(Reference Cederholm, Jensen and Correia26). Various screening tools have been developed and validated to assess malnutrition in different populations and healthcare settings(Reference Leij-Halfwerk, Verwijs and Houdt82Reference Schueren, Guaitoli and Jansma84). Table 1 provides an overview of frequently used and validated malnutrition screening tools(Reference Schueren and Jager-Wittenaar85). These tools encompass a range of criteria, incorporating phenotypic aspects such as unintentional weight loss, low BMI and reduced muscle mass, alongside aetiologic indicators such as reduced food/fluid intake, disease burden/inflammation and risk factors for malnutrition(Reference Cederholm, Jensen and Correia26,Reference Schueren and Jager-Wittenaar85,Reference Borkent, Schuurman and Beelen86) .

Table 1. Overview of criteria in a selection of frequently used malnutrition screening tools (from de van der Schueren, 2022)

1 DETERMINE Your Nutritional Health Nutrition Screening Initiative.

2 Geriatric Nutrition Risk Index.

3 Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form.

4 Malnutrition Screening Tool.

5 Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool.

6 Nutritional Risk Index.

7 Nutrition Risk Score.

8 Nutritional Risk Screening 2002.

9 Nutritional Form for the Elderly.

10 Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form.

11 Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition, version II.

12 Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire.

13 Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire for the Residential Care.

14 Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire 65+.

15 Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire.

Most malnutrition screening tools, following the 2002 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guidelines, primarily rely on low BMI and recent (unintentional) weight loss to identify malnutrition risk(Reference Correia, Tappenden and Malone48,Reference Kondrup, Allison and Elia87) . As previously mentioned, a low BMI (<18·5 kg/m2) is not useful, and traditional cut-off values for unintentional weight loss might not apply to individuals living with obesity, despite inclusion in these screening tools. In addition, because of the emphasis on weight loss, healthcare providers might not consider screening individuals living with obesity for malnutrition risk(Reference Dickerson, Andromalos and Brown28). In widely used malnutrition screening tools such as the MNA-short form (MNA-SF) and MUST, there are distinct differences in BMI cut-off points(Reference Neelemaat, Meijers and Kruizenga88). The MNA-SF sets a cut-off at 23 kg/m2(Reference Kaiser, Bauer and Uter89), whereas the MUST adopts a different approach with a cut-off of 20 kg/m2(90). Nevertheless, both tools may not be suitable for individuals living with obesity, and their underlying scoring system might therefore not apply to this specific population. Thus, a pertinent question arises of whether the traditional malnutrition screening tools are still appropriate(Reference Schueren and Jager-Wittenaar85).

Moreover, it is crucial to note that most malnutrition screening tools were validated against ‘gold standards’(Reference Schueren and Jager-Wittenaar85,Reference Kondrup, Allison and Elia87) , primarily focused on phenotypical criteria such as unintentional weight loss, low BMI and reduced muscle mass. Thus, many screening tools lack aetiological criteria. In addition, the use of validated tools specific to the setting and population is of utmost importance(Reference Phillips, Foley and Barnard91). Within the context of obesity, only one screening tool has been proposed for assessing malnutrition: the JaNuS tool(Reference Donini, Ricciardi and Neri92). This tool screens for over- and undernutrition in two separate sections, enabling a patient to score positively for one or both conditions. However, the JaNuS tool was validated in a pre-geriatric population and uses low albumin and low lymphocyte count as part of its criteria to assess nutrition status, which poses limitations to its universal applicability(Reference Donini, Ricciardi and Neri92,Reference Bharadwaj, Ginoya and Tandon93) . This further emphasises the urgent need to develop and validate specific tools designed to accurately identify malnutrition in this context.

In many malnutrition screening tools, assessing reduced muscle mass is often overlooked, except in the MNA-SF and SNAQ65, which use calf and arm circumferences(Reference Schueren and Jager-Wittenaar85,Reference Borkent, Schuurman and Beelen86) . Again, the traditional cut-off values for these measurements may not apply to individuals living with obesity(Reference van Baar, Winkels and Brouwer94). Due to higher fat mass presence, muscle mass and predominantly fat mass will be included in the measurement, rendering it inaccurate(Reference Sizoo, de Heide and Emous58). Thus, to effectively address this challenge, questions need to be adapted to include appropriate cut-offs specifically tailored to the context of obesity.

Malnutrition screening tools typically strongly rely on anthropometric measurements and focus only to a lesser extent on nutrient intake(Reference Cederholm, Barazzoni and Austin41). Most screening tools lack comprehensive questions regarding nutritional intake, let alone their applicability to obesity(Reference Neelemaat, Meijers and Kruizenga88). As a result, these tools often fail to effectively identify the underlying nutritional issues. Notably, questions related to nutrient intake in malnutrition screening tools tend to focus solely on quantity, without considering the distinction between the quality and quantity of nutrient consumption. This oversight is particularly important given that obesity is influenced by the quality of foods consumed rather than just their quantity(Reference Hawkes95,Reference Popkin96) . Furthermore, screening tools often fail to consider an individual’s specific dietary preferences and restrictions, which could lead to incomplete dietary pattern assessments due to reliance on binary yes-or-no responses(Reference Schueren, Guaitoli and Jansma83,Reference Neelemaat, Meijers and Kruizenga88) . This limitation might undermine the accurate evaluation of nutritional risks.

Besides the phenotypic and aetiological criteria, malnutrition screening tools take various risk factors into account, as shown in Table 1(Reference Schueren and Jager-Wittenaar85). However, not all these factors apply to obesity. For instance, appetite regulation differs in individuals living with obesity due to disrupted mechanisms of appetite control and body weight maintenance, leading to distinct changes in appetite and dietary intake responses(Reference Klok, Jakobsdottir and Drent97). Satiety may also not be a suitable malnutrition risk factor for individuals living with obesity given the hormonal imbalances and metabolic dysregulation often present in obesity, potentially resulting in reduced satiety(Reference Lean and Malkova98). This contrasts with cases of malnutrition where reduced appetite and satiety are more common. Hence, the importance of satiety as a malnutrition risk factor could vary between individuals living with obesity and those with a healthy weight.

Certain screening tools, including the MNA and SCREEN II, extend the standard weight loss question to incorporate additional obesity-related factors such as intentions for weight change and perceptions of body weight(Reference Borkent, Schuurman and Beelen86). However, relying on self-perception of nutritional status in individuals living with obesity could be compromised by societal norms and personal biases, potentially leading to an underestimation of malnutrition risk(Reference Robinson, Haynes and Sutin99). This challenge highlights the need for more objective measures in nutritional screening. Furthermore, tools designed to assess self-perception can also be influenced by the desire for weight loss, possibly underestimating nutritional sufficiency and leading to a higher nutritional risk(Reference Robinson and Kersbergen100). Hence, relying solely on self-reported perceptions, especially in cases of obesity, may not ensure accurate assessments.

There is also a noteworthy gap in screening tools regarding malnutrition risk factors associated with obesity. For example, these screening tools often omit recurrent cycles of weight loss and gain resulting from yo-yo dieting and unhealthy weight loss practices, which can reveal underlying nutritional challenges(Reference Montani, Schutz and Dulloo101). These cycles should not be ignored, as they pose potential risks including metabolic adaptations, loss of lean muscle mass, psychological consequences, cardiovascular health concerns and the potential for disordered eating(Reference Contreras, Schriever and Pfluger102). Screening an individual living with obesity’s treatment history is equally crucial but not incorporated into screening tools. Consider the already mentioned bariatric surgery, for instance. It is important due to its association with reduced protein intake resulting from post-surgical dietary restrictions and intolerance to protein-rich foods, thus acting as a risk factor for malnutrition(Reference Mohapatra, Gangadharan and Pitchumoni66).

In conclusion, current malnutrition screening tools may not accurately identify malnutrition in the population with obesity, a concern heightened by the rising global obesity rates. Our examination of this issue has revealed several knowledge gaps that need to be filled.

Recommendations for future research, within our and other projects

As we look ahead, our research efforts aim to centre around the following recommendations. These suggestions stem from our insights into challenges such as differentiating between sarcopenic obesity and malnutrition in obesity, improving diagnostic accuracy and updating screening tools for identifying malnutrition within obesity. By adopting these recommendations, we can facilitate more precise identification, interventions and care for individuals with both obesity and malnutrition.

Differentiating sarcopenic obesity from malnutrition in obesity

Research efforts should be directed towards refining the differentiation between sarcopenic obesity and malnutrition among individuals living with obesity. The focus should centre on understanding their distinct pathogenesis linked to inflammatory patterns and severity. This should involve the investigation of specific (inflammatory) biomarkers, imaging techniques or composite indicators that can accurately distinguish between these conditions. Additionally, it is important to consider the association of both conditions with the ageing process (sarcopenic obesity) and acute diseases (malnutrition in obesity). These efforts will ensure appropriate intervention strategies for optimal health outcomes.

Improving diagnostic accuracy

Novel diagnostic approaches that consider the altered physiology of obesity should be developed and validated within the population with obesity. This involves improving anthropometric measurements, body composition analyses and exploring biochemical markers. This will facilitate accurate identification and diagnosis of the problem and timely intervention.

Updating screening tools and diagnostic criteria

Recognising the limitations of current screening tools and diagnostic criteria, future research should focus on the development and validation of comprehensive assessment tools and diagnostic criteria tailored to the complexities of obesity. These tools should incorporate refined body composition assessments, inflammation criteria and applicable obesity-related risk factors that accurately reflect the nutritional status of individuals living with obesity. Furthermore, these tools should incorporate distinct cut-off points tailored for weight loss and muscle mass in individuals living with obesity. A constructive proposal would be to integrate these modifications within the GLIM criteria, forming a dedicated subset specially designed for patients with obesity.

Validation across diverse populations with obesity

To ensure the applicability of newly developed screening tools and diagnostic criteria, validation studies should be conducted across diverse populations with obesity, encompassing different age groups, ethnicities and specific comorbidities. This will enhance their usability across different demographic and clinical situations, making them more effective in real-world settings.

Conducting longitudinal studies for comprehensive insights

Conducting longitudinal studies that follow the nutritional trajectory of individuals living with obesity as well as those with a healthy weight over time is essential for meaningful comparisons. These studies can offer valuable insights into the interplay between obesity, malnutrition and disease progression, aiding in identifying early markers of malnutrition (risk) and the evaluation of interventions.

Collaborative research endeavours

Promoting collaboration among experts in malnutrition, obesity and related fields is crucial for collectively addressing the complex challenges of malnutrition assessment in individuals living with obesity. This collaborative approach can drive comprehensive research strategies, leading to the development of more accurate and impactful assessment tools. Our existing partnership with SOGLI, which specialises in sarcopenic obesity research, provides a unique advantage and can further enhance these efforts(Reference Donini, Busetto and Bischoff31,Reference Gortan Cappellari, Guillet and Poggiogalle32) . Additionally, we also plan to collaborate with the recently established Global Leadership Initiative on Sarcopenia (GLIS), closely following its outcomes to contribute to and stay informed about advancements in sarcopenia research. By using shared knowledge and resources, we can accelerate the innovation of assessment tools, interventions and guidelines tailored to identifying and addressing malnutrition within the context of obesity.

Interventional trials for optimal care

Research can be broadened through the implementation of interventional trials that prioritise tailored strategies to address malnutrition in individuals living with obesity. These trials can provide an approach to explore the effects of personalised nutritional interventions, exercise plans and multidisciplinary care approaches on augmenting nutritional wellbeing and overall health outcomes. By systematically addressing these research recommendations, the scientific community can bridge the current gaps in malnutrition assessment within the context of obesity, leading to advancements in diagnosis, intervention and, ultimately, improved health outcomes for individuals living with obesity.

Conclusion

Addressing malnutrition within the context of obesity is a multidimensional challenge. The key points from this review reveal that traditional malnutrition diagnostic criteria are unsuitable for individuals living with obesity due to the distinctive physiological characteristics of obesity. While the GLIM criteria are widely recognised, they require distinct cut-off points for individuals living with obesity. The usage of certain indicators such as low BMI and percentage weight loss could potentially lead to a malnutrition underdiagnosis. Similarly, existing screening tools may also fall short in capturing the nutritional challenges faced by individuals living with obesity, as they prioritise anthropometric measurements over specific nutrient intake considerations.

This overview emphasises the urgent need for tailored approaches that acknowledge the details of malnutrition in the context of obesity. The call for adapting existing tools is evident, requiring the integration of appropriate cut-off values for weight loss and reduced muscle mass that are specific for obesity. By doing so, healthcare practitioners will be better equipped to identify and address malnutrition in individuals living with obesity at an early stage, ultimately leading to improved healthcare outcomes and overall wellbeing.

Acknowledgements

None.

Author contributions

J.W.B. and M.d.v.d.S. collaboratively designed and conceptualised the study. The literature search, data collection and initial drafting of the paper were led by N.N.M. and J.W.B. J.W.B., B.S.M. and M.d.v.d.S. played central roles in reviewing, refining and critically evaluating the manuscript. All authors approved the final version submitted for publication. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet the authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Financial support

This study was partially funded by the ZonMw Covid-19 programme (10430122210002).

Competing interests

The author(s) declare none.

References

Schuetz, P, Seres, D, Lobo, DN, et al. (2021) Management of disease-related malnutrition for patients being treated in hospital. Lancet 398, 19271938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruizenga, H, van Keeken, S, Weijs, P, et al. (2016) Undernutrition screening survey in 564,063 patients: patients with a positive undernutrition screening score stay in hospital 1.4 d longer. Am J Clin Nutr 103, 10261032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, LA, Gout, BS, Crowe, TC (2011) Hospital malnutrition: prevalence, identification and impact on patients and the healthcare system. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8, 514527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freijer, K, Tan, SS, Koopmanschap, MA, et al. (2013) The economic costs of disease related malnutrition. Clin Nutr 32, 136141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijers, JMM, Halfens, RJG, van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, MAE, et al. (2009) Malnutrition in Dutch health care: prevalence, prevention, treatment, and quality indicators. Nutrition 25, 512519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schilp, J, Kruizenga, HM, Wijnhoven, HAH, et al. (2012) High prevalence of undernutrition in Dutch community-dwelling older individuals. Nutrition 28, 11511156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de van der Schueren, MAE, Borkent, JW, Spaans, GW, et al. (2022) GLIM in nursing homes; practical implications. Clin Nutr 41, 24422445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santarpia, L, Contaldo, F, Pasanisi, F. (2011) Nutritional screening and early treatment of malnutrition in cancer patients. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2, 2735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Böhne, SEJ, Hiesmayr, M, Sulz, I, et al. (2022) Recent and current low food intake – prevalence and associated factors in hospital patients from different medical specialities. Eur J Clin Nutr 76, 14401448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landi, F, Camprubi-Robles, M, Bear, DE, et al. (2019) Muscle loss: the new malnutrition challenge in clinical practice. Clin Nutr 38, 21132120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saunders, J & Smith, T (2010) Malnutrition: causes and consequences. Clin Med 10, 624627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Pols-Vijlbrief, R, Wijnhoven, HAH, Schaap, LA, et al. (2014) Determinants of protein–energy malnutrition in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review of observational studies. Ageing Res Rev 18, 112131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wijnhoven, HAH, Schilp, J, van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren, MAE, et al. (2012) Development and validation of criteria for determining undernutrition in community-dwelling older men and women: the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire 65+. Clin Nutr 31, 351358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangadharan, A, Choi, SE, Hassan, A, et al. (2017) Protein calorie malnutrition, nutritional intervention and personalized cancer care. Oncotarget 8, 2400924030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, JC, Sawaya, AL, Wibaek, R, et al. (2020) The double burden of malnutrition: aetiological pathways and consequences for health. Lancet 395, 7588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claudia, S & Roger, R (2023) The double burden of malnutrition: a review of global evidence [Internet]: World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/905651468339879888/The-double-burden-of-malnutrition-a-review-of-global-evidence Google Scholar
The Double Burden of Malnutrition: Policy Brief [Internet]. [cited 2023 Jun 9]. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-NMH-NHD-17.3 Google Scholar
Kaidar-Person, O, Person, B, Szomstein, S, et al. (2008) Nutritional deficiencies in morbidly obese patients: a new form of malnutrition? Part A: vitamins. Obes Surg 18, 870876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, A, Rojas, P, Basfi-Fer, K, et al. (2016) Micronutrient deficiencies in morbidly obese women prior to bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 26, 361368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ness, SJ, Hickling, DF, Bell, JJ, et al. (2018) The pressures of obesity: the relationship between obesity, malnutrition and pressure injuries in hospital inpatients. Clin Nutr 37, 15691574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, I & Smith, S (2004) Nutritional screening: pitfalls of nutritional screening in the injured obese patient. Proc Nutr Soc 63, 421425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, MJ (2009) Validation of the Mini Nutritional Assessment short-form (MNA®-SF): a practical tool for identification of nutritional status. J Nutr Health Aging 13, 782788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Detsky, AS, Baker, JP, Mendelson, RA, et al. (1984) Evaluating the accuracy of nutritional assessment techniques applied to hospitalized patients: methodology and comparisons. J Parenter Enter Nutr 8, 153159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elia, M (2003) The “MUST” report. Nutritional screening for adults: a multidisciplinary responsibility. Development and use of the “Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool” (MUST) for adults. [Internet]. British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (BAPEN); [cited 2023 Aug 18]. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/362499/ Google Scholar
Kruizenga, H, Seidell, J, De Vet, H, et al. (2005) Development and validation of a hospital screening tool for malnutrition: the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ). Clin Nutr 24, 7582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cederholm, T, Jensen, GL, Correia, MITD, et al. (2019) GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition – a consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. Clin Nutr 38, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malnutrition in women [Internet]. [cited 2023 Dec 8]. https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/nlis/info/malnutrition-in-women Google Scholar
Dickerson, RN, Andromalos, L, Brown, JC, et al. (2022) Obesity and critical care nutrition: current practice gaps and directions for future research. Crit Care 26, 283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, JJ, Pulle, RC, Lee, HB, et al. (2021) Diagnosis of overweight or obese malnutrition spells DOOM for hip fracture patients: a prospective audit. Clin Nutr 40, 19051910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosy-Westphal, A & Müller, MJ (2021) Diagnosis of obesity based on body composition-associated health risks—time for a change in paradigm. Obes Rev 22(S2), e13190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donini, LM, Busetto, L, Bischoff, SC, et al. (2022) Definition and diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity: ESPEN and EASO consensus statement. Clin Nutr 41, 9901000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gortan Cappellari, G, Guillet, C, Poggiogalle, E, et al. (2023) Sarcopenic obesity research perspectives outlined by the sarcopenic obesity global leadership initiative (SOGLI) – Proceedings from the SOGLI consortium meeting in Rome November 2022. Clin Nutr 42, 687699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donini, LM, Busetto, L, Bauer, JM, et al. (2020) Critical appraisal of definitions and diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity based on a systematic review. Clin Nutr 39, 23682388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Obesity and overweight [Internet]. [cited 2022 Nov 23]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight Google Scholar
Cruz-Jentoft, AJ, Bahat, G, Bauer, J, et al. (2019) Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 48, 1631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muscaritoli, M, Anker, SD, Argilés, J, et al. (2010) Consensus definition of sarcopenia, cachexia and pre-cachexia: Joint document elaborated by Special Interest Groups (SIG) “cachexia-anorexia in chronic wasting diseases” and “nutrition in geriatrics.” Clin Nutr 29, 154159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carneiro, IP, Mazurak, VC, Prado, CM (2016) Clinical implications of sarcopenic obesity in cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 18, 62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gupta, P & Kumar, S (2022) Sarcopenia and endocrine ageing: are they related? Cureus 14, e28787.Google ScholarPubMed
Cruz-Jentoft, AJ, Baeyens, JP, Bauer, JM, et al. (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing 39, 412423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, JK, Murphy, RA, Ciappio, ED, et al. (2017) Risk of deficiency in multiple concurrent micronutrients in children and adults in the United States. Nutrients 9, 655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cederholm, T, Barazzoni, R, Austin, P, et al. (2017) ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition. Clin Nutr 36, 4964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO Consultation on Obesity (1999) Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 894, ixii, 1–253.Google Scholar
Dodds, RM, Syddall, HE, Cooper, R, et al. (2014) Grip strength across the life course: normative data from twelve British studies. PLoS One Public Library of Science 9, e113637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L-K, Woo, J, Assantachai, P, et al. (2020) Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia: 2019 consensus update on sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment. J Am Med Dir Assoc Elsevier 21, 300307.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, D, Heymsfield, SB, Heo, M, et al. (2000) Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr 72, 694701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janssen, I, Heymsfield, SB, Ross, R (2002) Low relative skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with functional impairment and physical disability. J Am Geriatr Soc 50, 889896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batsis, JA, Barre, LK, Mackenzie, TA, et al. (2013) Variation in the prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in older adults associated with different research definitions: dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry data from the national health and nutrition examination survey 1999–2004. J Am Geriatr Soc 61, 974980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Correia, MITD, Tappenden, KA, Malone, A, et al. (2022) Utilization and validation of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM): a scoping review. Clin Nutr 41, 687697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deitel, M, Gawdat, K & Melissas, J (2007) Reporting weight loss. Obes Surg 17, 565568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douketis, JD, Macie, C, Thabane, L, et al. (2005) Systematic review of long-term weight loss studies in obese adults: clinical significance and applicability to clinical practice. Int J Obes 29, 11531167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Stefani, F do C, Pietraroia, PS, Fernandes-Silva, MM, et al. (2018) Observational evidence for unintentional weight loss in all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 8, 15447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aldahhan, RA, Motawei, KH, Al-Hariri, MT (2022) Lipotoxicity-related sarcopenia: a review. J Med Life 15, 13341339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingram, DD & Mussolino, ME (2010) Weight loss from maximum body weight and mortality: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Linked Mortality File. Int J Obes 34, 10441050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barazzoni, R, Sulz, I, Schindler, K, et al. (2020) A negative impact of recent weight loss on in-hospital mortality is not modified by overweight and obesity. Clin Nutr 39, 25102516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cava, E, Yeat, NC & Mittendorfer, B (2017) Preserving healthy muscle during weight loss. Adv Nutr 8, 511519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barazzoni, R, Breda, J, Cuerda, C, et al. (2022) COVID-19: lessons on malnutrition, nutritional care and public health from the ESPEN-WHO Europe call for papers. Clin Nutr 41, 28582868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallis, J, James, RS & Seebacher, F (2018) The effects of obesity on skeletal muscle contractile function. J Exp Biol 221, jeb163840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sizoo, D, de Heide, LJM, Emous, M, et al. (2021) Measuring muscle mass and strength in obesity: a review of various methods. Obes Surg 31, 384393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez, MC, Mehrnezhad, A, Razaviarab, N, et al. (2021) Calf circumference: cutoff values from the NHANES 1999–2006. Am J Clin Nutr 113, 16791687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, B, Braun, W, Geisler, C, et al. (2019) Limitations of fat-free mass for the assessment of muscle mass in obesity. Obes Facts 12, 307315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simó-Servat, A, Ibarra, M, Libran, M, et al. (2022) Usefulness of muscle ultrasound to study sarcopenic obesity: a pilot case-control study. J Clin Med 11, 2886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyle, UG, Bosaeus, I, De Lorenzo, AD, et al. (2004) Bioelectrical impedance analysis—part I: review of principles and methods. Clin Nutr 23, 12261243.Google ScholarPubMed
Jensen, B, Braun, W, Geisler, C, et al. (2019) Limitations of fat-free mass for the assessment of muscle mass in obesity. Obes Facts 12, 307315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brownbill, RA & Ilich, JZ (2005) Measuring body composition in overweight individuals by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. BMC Med Imaging 5, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gulinac, M, Miteva, DG, Peshevska-Sekulovska, M, et al. (2023) Long-term effectiveness, outcomes and complications of bariatric surgery. World J Clin Cases 11, 45044512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohapatra, S, Gangadharan, K & Pitchumoni, CS (2020) Malnutrition in obesity before and after bariatric surgery. Dis Mon 66, 100866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harbury, CM, Verbruggen, EE, Callister, R, et al. (2016) What do individuals with morbid obesity report as a usual dietary intake? A narrative review of available evidence. Clin Nutr ESPEN 13, e15e22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, WPT (2008) The epidemiology of obesity: the size of the problem. J Intern Med 263, 336–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costamagna, D, Costelli, P, Sampaolesi, M, et al. (2015) Role of inflammation in muscle homeostasis and myogenesis. Mediat Inflamm 2015, e805172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calder, PC, Ahluwalia, N, Brouns, F, et al. (2011) Dietary factors and low-grade inflammation in relation to overweight and obesity. Br J Nutr 106(S3), S1S78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monteiro, R & Azevedo, I (2010) Chronic inflammation in obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Mediat. Inflamm 2010, e289645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cederholm, T, Jensen, GL, Ballesteros-Pomar, MD, et al. (2024) Guidance for assessment of the inflammation etiologic criterion for the GLIM diagnosis of malnutrition: A modified Delphi approach. Clin Nutr 43, 10251032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, D, Bartha, P, Zinder, O, et al. (2004) Obesity is the major determinant of elevated C-reactive protein in subjects with the metabolic syndrome. Int J Obes 28, 674679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruizenga, HM, de Vet, HCW, Van Marissing, CME, et al. (2010) The SNAQ(RC), an easy traffic light system as a first step in the recognition of undernutrition in residential care. J Nutr Health Aging 14, 8389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buicu, A-L, Cernea, S, Benedek, I, et al. (2021) Systemic inflammation and COVID-19 mortality in patients with major noncommunicable diseases: chronic coronary syndromes, diabetes and obesity. J Clin Med 10, 1545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aghili, SMM, Ebrahimpur, M, Arjmand, B, et al. (2021) Obesity in COVID-19 era, implications for mechanisms, comorbidities, and prognosis: a review and meta-analysis. Int J Obes 45, 9981016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalligeros, M, Shehadeh, F, Mylona, EK, et al. (2020) Association of obesity with disease severity among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Obesity 28, 12001204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hruby, A & Hu, FB (2015) The epidemiology of obesity: a big picture. PharmacoEconomics 33, 673689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purcell, SA, Kok, DE, Ketterl, T, et al. (2023) Pharmacokinetics of cancer therapeutics and energy balance: the role of diet intake, energy expenditure, and body composition. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2023, 311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smit, C, De Hoogd, S, Brüggemann, RJM, et al. (2018) Obesity and drug pharmacology: a review of the influence of obesity on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. Exp Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 14, 275285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barazzoni, R, Bischoff, S, Boirie, Y, et al. (2018) Sarcopenic obesity: time to meet the challenge. Obes Facts 11, 294305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leij-Halfwerk, S, Verwijs, MH, Houdt, S van, et al. (2019) Prevalence of protein–energy malnutrition risk in European older adults in community, residential and hospital settings, according to 22 malnutrition screening tools validated for use in adults ≥65 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas 126, 8089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schueren, MAE van B van der, Guaitoli, PR, Jansma, EP, et al. (2014) Nutrition screening tools: does one size fit all? A systematic review of screening tools for the hospital setting. Clin Nutr 33, 3958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schueren, MAE van B van der, Guaitoli, PR, Jansma, EP, et al. (2014) A systematic review of malnutrition screening tools for the nursing home setting. J. Am Med Dir Assoc 15, 171184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schueren, MAE de van der & Jager-Wittenaar, H (2022) Malnutrition risk screening: new insights in a new era. Clin Nutr 41, 21632168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkent, JW, Schuurman, LT, Beelen, J, et al. (2020) What do screening tools measure? Lessons learned from SCREEN II and SNAQ65. Clin Nutr ESPEN 38, 172177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondrup, J, Allison, SP, Elia, M, et al. (2003) ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening 2002. Clin Nutr 22, 415421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neelemaat, F, Meijers, J, Kruizenga, H, et al. (2011) Comparison of five malnutrition screening tools in one hospital inpatient sample. J Clin Nurs 20, 21442152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, MJ, Bauer, JM, Uter, W, et al. (2011) Prospective validation of the modified mini nutritional assessment short-forms in the community, nursing home, and rehabilitation setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 59, 21242128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BAPEN. Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool. https://www.bapen.org.uk/pdfs/must/must_full.pdf Google Scholar
Phillips, MB, Foley, AL, Barnard, R, et al. (2020) Nutritional screening in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic literature review. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 19, 440449.Google Scholar
Donini, LM, Ricciardi, LM, Neri, B, et al. (2014) Risk of malnutrition (over and under-nutrition): validation of the JaNuS screening tool. Clin Nutr 33, 10871094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bharadwaj, S, Ginoya, S, Tandon, P, et al. (2016) Malnutrition: laboratory markers vs nutritional assessment. Gastroenterol Rep 4, 272.Google ScholarPubMed
van Baar, H, Winkels, RM, Brouwer, JGM, et al. (2020) Associations of abdominal skeletal muscle mass, fat mass, and mortality among men and women with stage I–III colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 29, 956965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkes, C (2006) Uneven dietary development: linking the policies and processes of globalization with the nutrition transition, obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Glob Health 2, 4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popkin, BM (1998) The nutrition transition and its health implications in lower-income countries. Public Health Nutr 1, 521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klok, MD, Jakobsdottir, S & Drent, ML (2007) The role of leptin and ghrelin in the regulation of food intake and body weight in humans: a review. Obes Rev 8, 2134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lean, MEJ & Malkova, D (2016) Altered gut and adipose tissue hormones in overweight and obese individuals: cause or consequence? Int J Obes 40, 622632.Google ScholarPubMed
Robinson, E, Haynes, A, Sutin, A, et al. (2020) Self-perception of overweight and obesity: a review of mental and physical health outcomes. Obes Sci Pract 6, 552561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, E & Kersbergen, I (2017) Overweight or about right? A norm comparison explanation of perceived weight status. Obes Sci Pract 3, 3643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montani, J-P, Schutz, Y & Dulloo, AG (2015) Dieting and weight cycling as risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases: who is really at risk? Obes Rev 16(S1), 718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Contreras, RE, Schriever, SC & Pfluger, PT (2019) Physiological and epigenetic features of Yoyo dieting and weight control. Front Genet 10, 1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Differences and similarities of sarcopenic obesity and malnutrition in obesity.

Figure 1

Table 1. Overview of criteria in a selection of frequently used malnutrition screening tools (from de van der Schueren, 2022)