Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31359182›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

A systematic review examining nutrition support interventions in patients with incurable cancer.

Honor A Blackwood, Charlie C Hall, Trude R Balstad, Tora S Solheim, Marie Fallon, Erna Haraldsdottir, Barry J Laird

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Effectiveness of the nutrition referral system in a multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer clinic.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Honor A BlackwoodSt Columba's Hospice, Centre for Education and Research, Edinburgh, UK. hblackwood@stcolumbashospice.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2120-251X
Charlie C HallSt Columba's Hospice, Centre for Education and Research, Edinburgh, UK.
Trude R BalstadCancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Tora S SolheimCancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Marie FallonInstitute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Erna HaraldsdottirSt Columba's Hospice, Centre for Education and Research, Edinburgh, UK.
Barry J LairdSt Columba's Hospice, Centre for Education and Research, Edinburgh, UK.
Institute of Genetics and Cancer · GBNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOHospice UK · GBUniversity of Iceland · IS

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-RP-16-A20997
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecent guidelines by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) have advocated increased attention to nutritional support in all patients with cancer; however, little is known about the optimal type of nutritional intervention. The aim of this review was to assess the current evidence for nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer.

methodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from 1990 to 2018. Evidence was appraised using a modified risk of bias table, based on guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

resultsSixty studies were assessed of which twelve met the eligibility criteria. Eleven studies examined body composition, with six studies reporting improvements in weight. Six studies examined nutritional status with three studies reporting an improvement. Nine studies examined nutritional intake with six showing improvements including significant improvements in dietary and protein intake. Ten studies examined quality of life, with six studies reporting improvements following intervention. The most common nutritional interventions examined were nutrition counselling and dietary supplementation.

conclusionsThere is moderate quality evidence to support the need for increased attention to nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer; however, despite some statistically significant results being reported, the clinical effects of them were small. Key questions remain as to the optimal timing for these interventions to be implemented (e.g. cachexia stage, illness stage and timing with anticancer therapy) and the most appropriate endpoint measures.

Indexed as

Body WeightCachexiaCounselingDietary SupplementsHumansNeoplasmsNutritional StatusNutritional SupportObservational Studies as TopicQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCachexiaCancerNutritional interventionsNutrition supportSupplementsWeight

Identifiers

PMID31359182
OpenAlexW2966688633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.