ReviewThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2012
Pharmacological interventions for geriatric cachexia: a narrative review of the literature.
Review in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-specific effects of relaxin-3 on food intake and body weight gain.British journal of pharmacology · 2017Review
- Anorexia of aging: a true geriatric syndrome.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this review was to investigate the range of pharmacological interventions that have been studied for treatment of geriatric cachexia, and to evaluate their effect on selected clinical outcomes in this population.
methodsDatabases including Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to March 2010 with search terms including "cache*", "intervention", "megestrol acetate" and "cytokine inhibitors". Studies investigating subjects with mean age <60y or disease-related cachexia were excluded. Outcomes assessed were weight or BMI, body composition, appetite and laboratory parameters indicative of cachexia.
resultsFifteen publications met the selection criteria, reporting on ten studies. Seven studies investigated use of megestrol acetate (MA): two randomised controlled trials, one case control study, two pre-test/post-test studies and two retrospective chart reviews. Weight/BMI was common amongst outcomes and these studies showed an improvement in weight compared with baseline. MA studies which investigated body composition, appetite and/or laboratory parameters provided some evidence for improvement in these outcomes. Three randomised controlled trials investigated the use of other interventions: ghrelin, growth hormone and vitamin supplementations. All demonstrated a significant increase in lean body mass. The only other outcome of interest in these three trials was weight in one study with a significant increase demonstrated.
conclusionLittle investigation has been conducted in this population and the diagnosis of cachexia is problematic however these trials provide preliminary evidence for beneficial outcomes in older adults likely to have cachexia. Further high quality adequately powered prospective studies are necessary to provide effective treatment for geriatric cachexia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.