SynthesisNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2026
The effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formula on clinical outcomes in adults: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formula on clinical outcomes in adults: A systematic review.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026Pooled it
- Risk of gastrointestinal intolerance and complications associated with homemade versus commercial enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of Home Enteral Nutrition in Australia with a Focus on Blended Tube Feeding.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost Implications of Commercial Blenderized versus Plant-Based Standard Enteral Formulas in Children and Adults in Post-Acute Care: A Retrospective Study.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore the effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formulas on nutritional status, quality of life, anthropometry, diarrhoea and tube blockages in adults receiving tube feeding.
methodsThe protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42022372443). Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, CENTRAL) were searched from commencement of database to 14th June 2023 to identify studies comparing blended tube feeding to conventional formulas in adults receiving tube feeding. Certainty assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework, and a narrative synthesis of results is provided.
resultsFrom 4227 studies screened, eight were included (total n = 763 patients, 9-215 patients). Three studies were hospital-based and five were home-based with duration from 8 days-8 months. Blended tube feeding and conventional formulas were nutritionally equivalent in only three studies; energy and protein concentration of formulas ranged from 1.7-7.1 kJ/mL and 21-68.5 g/L for the blended tube feeding groups, and 4.2-6.7 kJ/mL and 39-100 g/L for the conventional groups. No studies assessed nutrition status or quality of life using validated measures. Blended tube feeding was associated with a clinically relevant reduction in diarrhoea with a low level of certainty. For remaining outcomes, there were inconclusive findings and an overall very low certainty of evidence for each.
conclusionThe effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formulas on all outcomes remains uncertain. Blended tube feeding may reduce the incidence of diarrhoea. Future research using nutritionally equivalent comparisons and validated outcome measures is required.
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.