Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40102963›Full record

ArticleBMC nutrition2025

The nutritional impact of 7 versus 21 home-delivered medically tailored meals in patients with heart failure and malnutrition risk: a random order crossover feeding trial (MEDIMEALS).

Charlene Compher, Jule Anne Henstenburg, Marianne Aloupis, Amy Sun, Ryan Quinn, Elizabeth Emery, Jovina Thomas, Adrian Glass Crafford, Daniel R Schwartz

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06142903 (THE COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF 7 VERSUS 21 HOME-DELIVERED MEDICALLY TAILORED MEALS TO IMPROVE MALNUTRITION RISK IN MALNOURISHED PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06142903 nacompletednot on this map

The comparative effectiveness of 7 versus 21 home-delivered medically tailored meals to improve malnutrition risk in malnourished patients with heart failure: a random order crossover feeding trial (medimeals)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2022 to 2024Enrolled46ConditionsHeart Failure, MalnutritionArms7 versus 21 medically tailored meals per week
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Nutrition and Culinary Education in Food Is Medicine Interventions: A Scoping Review.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Safety and Efficacy of Salt Restriction Across the Spectrum of Heart Failure.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Charlene CompherSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. compherc@upenn.edu.
Jule Anne HenstenburgMetropolitan Area Neighborhood Nutrition Alliance (MANNA), 420 North 20th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19130, USA.
Marianne AloupisHospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Amy SunHospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Ryan QuinnSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Elizabeth EmerySchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Jovina ThomasSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Adrian Glass CraffordMetropolitan Area Neighborhood Nutrition Alliance (MANNA), 420 North 20th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19130, USA.
Daniel R SchwartzClinical Medicine (Cardiovascular Medicine), Perelman University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, 19130, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeart failure (HF) is frequently associated with malnutrition or malnutrition risk. The delivery of medically tailored meals (MTM) to the homes of patients with HF and malnutrition risk or malnutrition after hospital discharge holds promise for improving outcomes. However, the number of MTM needed to provide benefit is not established.

methodsA random order crossover study was designed to compare the delivery of 7 versus 21 MTM for four weeks each to patients discharged from the hospital with HF and malnutrition risk. Telephone surveys were conducted at baseline, 30, and 60 days post-discharge to evaluate change in malnutrition risk, American Heart Association (AHA) diet goals, sarcopenia risk, and 30-day readmissions.

resultsForty-six patients were enrolled. Patients had reduced odds of having malnutrition risk relative to the baseline score at one and two months (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.74 and OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.99, respectively). The AHA diet score improved over time from baseline by 0.73 ± 0.22 units at one month (p = 0.0014), and by 0.48 ± 0.23 units at two months (p = 0.0430), regardless of the number of MTM provided. Sarcopenia risk improved over time (p = 0.01), decreasing by 0.43 ± 0.2 units by one (p = 0.03) and 0.59 ± 0.21 units by two months (p = 0.007) regardless of the number of MTM provided. Readmissions by 30 days were not significantly different based on the number of MTM provided (9% for 21 MTM vs 12.5% for 7 MTM), but well below national data at 23%.

conclusionThe provision of at least seven MTM per week in the early window after hospital discharge to patients with HF and malnutrition or malnutrition risk is a promising strategy to improve malnutrition and sarcopenia risk and diet adherence, while keeping readmissions below national averages.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT06142903, registered 11/23/2023.

Indexed as

Heart failureMalnutrition riskMedically tailored mealsMSTSARC-F

Identifiers

PMID40102963
PMCPMC11916996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.