Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38308925›Full record

Trial reportThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2024

The influence of patients' nutritional risk, nutritional status, and energy density in MEDPass versus conventional administration of oral nutritional supplements - A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Karin Schläppi, Emilie Reber, Katja A Schönenberger, Zeno Stanga, Silvia Kurmann

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 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. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karin SchläppiDepartment of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Emilie ReberDepartment of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Katja A SchönenbergerDepartment of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland; Division of Clinical Pharmacy and Epidemiology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Zeno StangaDepartment of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Silvia KurmannHealth Division, Nutrition and Dietetics, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: silvia.kurmann@bfh.ch.
University of Bern · CHBern University of Applied Sciences · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe clinical influence of nutritional risk, nutritional status, and energy density of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in MEDPass versus conventional administration of ONS is currently unknown. The aim of this analysis was to examine whether these variables have an impact on clinical outcomes.

methodsSecondary analysis of the intention to treat dataset of the randomized controlled MEDPass Trial in geriatric and medical inpatients. Patients in the intervention group received 4 × 50 ml ONS during the medication rounds (MEDPass mode), while those in the control group received ONS in a non-standardized manner. The examined endpoints included energy and protein coverage, ONS intake, handgrip strength (HGS), weight, appetite nausea and 30-day mortality. Three subgroup analyses for NRS 2002 total score (3, 4 or 5-7 points), NRS 2002 impaired nutritional status score (0, 1, 2 or 3 points) and energy density of the ONS (1.5 kcal/mL or 2 kcal/mL) were performed using linear and logistic regression with interaction and mixed effect models.

resultsThe data of 202 patients (103 women and 99 men) at nutritional risk (NRS total 2002 score ≥3), mean (SD) age 82.2 (6.5) years were included. There was no significant difference between the groups in the primary endpoint energy coverage in all three subgroup analyses. There were also no significant differences between the groups in the secondary endpoints of protein coverage, ONS intake, HGS, weight, appetite, nausea, and 30-day mortality.

conclusionThe MEDPass mode of ONS administration was not superior to the conventional mode of administration in this study. ONS with high energy density (≥2 kcal/mL) should be offered since current evidence shows a tendency towards improved appetite, increased ONS and increased energy intake.

Indexed as

MalnutritionNutritional StatusAdministration, OralAgedAged, 80 and overDietary SupplementsEnergy IntakeFemaleHand StrengthHumansMaleNauseaEnergy coverageEnergy densityMEDPassNutritional risk screening 2002Oral nutritional supplements

Identifiers

PMID38308925
PMCPMC12880566
OpenAlexW4391503504

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.