ArticleGeriatrics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting.
Article in Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Malnutrition (MN) is widespread in nursing homes. Sometimes, but not always, nutritional interventions (NIs) are made, and the reasons for or against NIs are unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to describe these reasons for residents with and without MN according to nurses' subjective judgement and according to objective signs of MN. The nutritional status of 246 nursing home residents was subjectively judged by nurses (MN, at risk of MN, no MN) and objectively assessed by body mass index (BMI), weight loss (WL), and low food intake. NIs (enriched meals and/or oral nutritional supplements) were recorded using a standardized questionnaire, and nurses' main reasons for (not) giving NIs were obtained in an open question. Of the residents, 11.0% were subjectively malnourished, and 25.6% were at risk of MN; 32.9% were malnourished according to objective criteria. Overall, 29.7% of the residents received NIs, 70.4% of those with MN as assessed by the nurses, 53.0% of those with objective MN, and 11.0% and 18.0% of non-malnourished residents, respectively. Reasons for NIs most often stated were low intake (47.9%), WL (23.3%), and low BMI (13.7%). Reasons against NIs mostly mentioned were adequate BMI (32.9%) and sufficient intake (24.3%). The lack of NIs for residents with MN was partially-but not always-explained by valid reasons. As residents without MN frequently received NIs, criteria for both MN rating and providing NIs, require closer scrutiny.
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.