Trial reportBMC geriatrics2020
The effects of promoting oral intake using the Kuchi-kara Taberu index, a comprehensive feeding assistant tool, in older pneumonia patients: a cluster randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dietary advice with or without oral nutritional supplements for disease-related malnutrition in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Effects of Physical Rehabilitation and Nutritional Intake Management on Improvement in Tongue Strength in Sarcopenic Patients.Nutrients · 2020Article
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
backgroundThe multidisciplinary comprehensive care (MDCC) program promotes the improvement of oral intake for older patients. The Kuchi-kara Taberu (ingesting orally in Japanese, KT) index was developed to objectively assess patient conditions in the MDCC program. This trial examined the effects of the index in promoting oral intake in older patients with pneumonia.
methodsA cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in 10 local hospitals targeting older patients with pneumonia (≥65 years). Ten hospitals were allocated randomly to either the intervention or the control group. Both groups (each with five hospitals) received the MDCC program for oral feeding, which consisted of professional assessment, care, and treatment. The KT index was used by the intervention group, focusing on improving low score items. The primary outcome was determined using the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) at discharge or 1 month after admission.
resultsOne hundred and twelve patients (46 women and 66 men) who participated from 10 hospitals, with a median age of 88 years (interquartile range [IQR], 80-91), were examined. The median FOIS level and the number of patients with oral intake (FOIS ≥ level 4) at discharge were 4 (IQR, 4-6) and 89 (79.5%), respectively. The duration of nil per os was 2 (IQR, 1-5) days. Clusters were not matched in the presence of Kuchi-kara Taberu Shiawase-wo Mamoru-kai-certified medical staff promoting oral intake in patients with dysphagia in each hospital. The median FOIS levels of 53 patients in the intervention group and 59 patients in the control group were 5 (IQR, 4-6) and 4 (IQR, 4-5), respectively, showing no statistically significant difference (P = 0.76). According to a multivariate analysis, the KT index had no positive effect on FOIS levels.
conclusionsThis trial was not able to demonstrate the usefulness of the KT index due to random assignment failure. However, both the intervention and control groups showed a high prevalence of oral intake (FOIS ≥ level 4) at discharge.
trial registrationUMIN-Clinical Trial Registry, UMIN000025172, December 17, 2016.
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.