ReviewNutrients2021
Standardised Outcome Reporting for the Nutrition Management of Complex Chronic Disease: A Rapid Review.
Review in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nutritional self-management in chronic diseases: a conceptual analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individuals with coexisting chronic diseases or with complex chronic disease are among the most challenging and costly patients to treat, placing a growing demand on healthcare systems. Recommending effective treatments, including nutrition interventions, relies on standardised outcome reporting from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to enable data synthesis. This rapid review sought to determine how the scope and consistency of the outcomes reported by RCTs investigating nutrition interventions for the management of complex chronic disease compared to what is recommended by the core outcome sets (COS) for individual disease states. Peer-reviewed RCTs published between January 2010 and July 2020 were systematically sourced from PubMed, CINAHL and Embase, and COS were sourced from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements (ICHOM) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. A total of 45 RCTs (43 studies) and 7 COS were identified. Outcomes were extracted from both the RCTs and COS and were organised using COMET Taxonomy Core Areas. A total of 66 outcomes and 439 outcome measures were reported by the RCTs. The RCTs demonstrated extensive outcome heterogeneity, with only five outcomes (5/66, 8%) being reported with relative consistency (cited by ≥50% of publications). Furthermore, the scope of the outcomes reported by studies was limited, with a notable paucity of patient-reported outcomes. Poor agreement (25%) was observed between the outcomes reported in the RCTs and those recommended by the COS. This review urges greater uptake of the existing COS and the development of a COS for complex chronic disease to be considered so that evidence can be better synthesised regarding effective nutrition interventions.
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.