Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33726841›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Energy and protein intake in medical and geriatric inpatients with MEDPass versus conventional administration of oral nutritional supplements: study protocol for the randomized controlled MEDPass Trial.

Silvia Kurmann, Emilie Reber, Maria F Vasiloglou, Philipp Schuetz, Andreas W Schoenenberger, Katja Uhlmann, Anna-Barbara Sterchi, Zeno Stanga

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03761680 (MEDPass Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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.

NCT03761680 nacompletednot on this map

MEDPass Trial: MEDPass Versus Conventional Administration of Oral Nutritional Supplements: A RCT Comparing Energy and Protein Intake

TypeinterventionalSponsorInsel Gruppe AG, University Hospital BernRan2018 to 2021Enrolled204ConditionsMalnutritionArmsMEDPass mode of administration, Control Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Factors influencing adherence to oral nutritional supplementation in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasms: a mixed methods systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Research on the demand, preference for oral nutritional supplementation in people with colorectal cancer in the postoperative period: A qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Silvia KurmannHealth Division, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Research and Development, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Murtenstrasse 10, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland. silvia.kurmann@bfh.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6721-5423
Emilie ReberDepartment of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 15, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Maria F VasiloglouAI in Health and Nutrition Laboratory, ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 50, CH-3008, Bern, Switzerland.
Philipp SchuetzMedical University Department, Clinic for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Division of General Internal and Emergency Medicine, Kantonsspital Aarau and Medical Faculty of the University of Basel, Tellstrasse H7, CH-5001, Aarau, Switzerland.
Andreas W SchoenenbergerDepartment of Geriatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Tiefenaustrasse 112, CH-3004, Bern, Switzerland.
Katja UhlmannHealth Division, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Research and Development, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Murtenstrasse 10, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Anna-Barbara SterchiDepartment of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 15, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Zeno StangaDepartment of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 15, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CHBern University of Applied Sciences · CHKantonsspital Aarau · CH

Funding

Abbott Laboratories (US) ANSW1701
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisease-related malnutrition is highly prevalent in hospitalized medical and geriatric inpatients. It is associated with negative outcomes such as muscle wasting, decline of functional status, and increased morbidity and mortality. Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) are frequently used in nutritional therapy to increase intake. However, compliance to ONS is often limited and maybe improved by prescribing ONS in small portions timed with the medication (MEDPass). However, it is unknown whether the MEDPass administration enhances patients' total energy and protein intake.

methodsThe MEDPass Trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label superiority trial. Patients in the MEDPass group receive 50 ml of ONS four times per day, distributed with the medication rounds. Patients in the control group receive ONS between meals. The primary outcome is average daily energy intake (% of calculated daily requirement). For our power analysis, we assumed that administration of ONS in the MEDPass administration mode increases energy intake by at least 10% (i.e., by 200 kcal for an average energy requirement of 2200 kcal/day). Thus, with the inclusion of 200 patients, this trial has 80% power to demonstrate that intervention group patients have an average intake of 2200 kcal/day (SD 500 kcal) versus 2000 kcal/day (SD 500 kcal) in control group patients. Energy and protein intakes from ONS and all food consumed are monitored continuously throughout the hospital stay and are statistically compared to the patient's requirements. Secondary outcomes include average daily protein intake (% of calculated daily requirement), average intake of ONS/day, the course of body weight, handgrip strength, appetite, and nausea. Furthermore, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality are assessed. The primary statistical analysis will be performed as an intention-to-treat analysis adjusted for the stratification factors used in randomization. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial assessing total energy and protein intake for the entire hospitalization period in patients receiving MEDPass versus conventional ONS administration. Thus, the MEDPass Trial will fill a gap and answer this relevant clinical question.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03761680 . Registered on 3 December 2018. Kofam.ch SNCTP000003191 . Registered on 15 October 2018.

Indexed as

InpatientsMalnutritionAdministration, OralAgedDietary SupplementsEnergy IntakeEquivalence Trials as TopicHand StrengthHumansNutritional StatusRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicEnergy intakeMalnutritionMedication roundsMEDPassNutrition as medicationOral nutritional supplementsProtein intake

Identifiers

PMID33726841
PMCPMC7962290
OpenAlexW3138619147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.