Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36550508›Full record

ArticleBMC nutrition2022

Malnutrition screening and treatment in pediatric oncology: a scoping review.

Jessica Franke, Chris Bishop, Daniel V Runco

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Defining Cachexia in Children With Cancer in the United States: Developing a Framework to Inform Clinical and Research Practice.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica FrankeMarian University College of Osteopathic Medicine, 3200 Cold Spring Rd, Indianapolis, IN, 46222, USA. jfranke167@marian.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9303-3669
Chris BishopMarian University College of Osteopathic Medicine, 3200 Cold Spring Rd, Indianapolis, IN, 46222, USA.
Daniel V RuncoDepartment of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, 705 Riley Hospital Drive, ROC Suite 4340, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. drunco@iupui.edu.
Marian University - Indiana · USIndiana University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalnutrition and cachexia during pediatric cancer treatment worsen toxicity and quality-of-life. Clinical practice varies with lack of standard malnutrition definition and nutrition interventions. This scoping review highlights available malnutrition screening and intervention data in childhood cancer and the need for standardizing assessment and treatment.

methodsOvid Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies containing malnutrition as the primary outcome with anthropometric, radiographic, or biochemical measurements. Secondary outcomes included validated nutritional assessment or screening tools. Two authors reviewed full manuscripts for inclusion. Narrative analysis was chosen over statistical analysis due to study heterogeneity.

resultsThe search yielded 234 articles and 17 articles identified from reference searching. Nine met inclusion criteria with six nutritional intervention studies (examining appetite stimulants, nutrition supplementation, and proactive feeding tubes) and three nutritional screening studies (algorithms or nutrition support teams) each with variable measures and outcomes. Both laboratory evaluations (albumin, prealbumin, total protein) and body measurement (weight loss, mid-upper arm circumference) were used. Studies demonstrated improved weight, without difference between formula or appetite stimulant used. Screening studies yielded mixed results on preventing weight loss, weight gain, and survival.

conclusionOur review demonstrated a paucity of evidence for malnutrition screening and intervention in pediatric cancer treatment. While a variety of malnutrition outcomes, interventions, and screening tools exist, nutritional interventions increased weight and decreased complications. Screening tools decreased malnutrition risk and may improve weight gain. Potential age- and disease-specific nutritional benefits and toxicities also exist, further highlighting the benefit of standardizing malnutrition definitions, screening, and interventions.

Indexed as

Cancer cachexiaMalnutritionNutritionPediatric

Identifiers

PMID36550508
PMCPMC9773580
OpenAlexW4312141214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.