Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22837764›Full record

ArticleEcancermedicalscience2012

Methods for nutrition monitoring in cancer patients: a cognitive perspective.

C Lucchiari, M Masiero, G Pravettoni

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C LucchiariUniversità degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
M Masiero
G Pravettoni
European Institute of Oncology · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the present medical context, the evaluation and the monitoring of factors other than mere physical symptoms are an urgent demand. In particular, the issue of quality of life (QoL) has become a relevant target in the treatment of cancer. However, the approach towards these aspects is not well standardized and the actual applications in a concrete setting are fragmented, left to personal or local initiative. If this is true for QoL in general, it is particularly relevant in the specific field of nutrition. Indeed, though the growing awareness of a correlation between chronic diseases and dietary habits has led to an increased interest in nutrition, both before and after cancer, very little is still known about the methods that measure this important variable of the QoL. Indeed, good nutrition may have a relevant impact on QoL, positively affecting both the physical and psychological well-being. Targeting this issue implies using proper instruments to both monitor and educate the patients. Hence, we argue that it is vital for oncologists to be able to individuate the best tool available in a specified context, so as to achieve an important goal with little effort, also adopting standardized strategies proved to be efficacious. In this framework, we briefly reviewed the tools more frequently reported in the scientific literature. We suggest that through a cognitive approach, it is possible to achieve important clinical targets, initially by understanding the patients' needs, values, and psychosocial factors involved in nutritional behaviour and food-related decisions, in order to develop a personalized approach. Hence, this is the only way to support concrete actions for promoting healthier diets, thus preventing recurrences, monitoring chronic conditions, and supporting a good QoL.

Indexed as

cancerdecision-makingdietary assessment methodsnutritionpersonalized approach

Identifiers

PMID22837764
PMCPMC3404545
OpenAlexW2140813316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.