Trial reportNutrients2017
Evaluation of Pictorial Dietary Assessment Tool for Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes: Cost, Accuracy, and User Satisfaction Analysis.
Trial report in Nutrients, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although nutritional screening and dietary monitoring in clinical settings are important, studies on related user satisfaction and cost benefit are still lacking. This study aimed to: (1) elucidate the cost of implementing a newly developed dietary monitoring tool, the Pictorial Dietary Assessment Tool (PDAT); and (2) investigate the accuracy of estimation and satisfaction of healthcare staff after the use of the PDAT. A cross-over intervention study was conducted among 132 hospitalized patients with diabetes. Cost and time for the implementation of PDAT in comparison to modified Comstock was estimated using the activity-based costing approach. Accuracy was expressed as the percentages of energy and protein obtained by both methods, which were within 15% and 30%, respectively, of those obtained by the food weighing. Satisfaction of healthcare staff was measured using a standardized questionnaire. Time to complete the food intake recording of patients using PDAT (2.31 ± 0.70 min) was shorter than when modified Comstock (3.53 ± 1.27 min) was used (
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.