ReviewJournal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition2025
State-of-the-art review of blenderized diets-Status and future directions.
Review in Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Experience and attitudes toward blended tube feeding in Dutch pediatric healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional survey.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2026Article
- Enteral Feeds: Benefits and Drawbacks Associated with Blenderized Feeds and Commercial Formulas-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Nutritional Strategies for Intestinal Rehabilitation in Children with Short Bowel Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2026Review
- State-of-the-art review of blenderized diets-Status and future directions.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This state-of-the-art review was produced by a multidisciplinary team composed of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition healthcare providers to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of blenderized tube feeds (BTFs). The team developed 12 vital questions to address gaps in the current understanding and practice of using BTFs, then performed a comprehensive search of literature published between 2000 and 2023 using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase databases, and an individual search of references. There was a scarcity of well-designed randomized clinical trials, and most of the studies were prospective or retrospective observational reports from heterogeneous patient demographics, varieties of BTFs, and medical conditions. Use of BTFs was associated with improved outcomes, including higher satisfaction, reduced gastroesophageal reflux, retching, gagging, constipation, frequency of hospitalization for respiratory disease, and greater diversity of the gut microbiome. However, homemade and commercially manufactured BTFs varied in nutrient composition and physical properties, such as viscosity, which posed challenges related to ease of administration and comparison of clinical outcomes. Therefore, whereas the use of BTFs as an alternative to standard commercial formulas has become increasingly popular, further evidence is warranted to provide guidelines on best practices for usage, monitoring, and comparing clinical outcomes. Pediatric dietitians and clinician practitioners must regularly monitor children receiving BTFs to ensure nutritional adequacy, optimize safe and effective delivery, and promote optimal growth. The team proposed future directions regarding best practices for using BTFs, primarily related to clinical application and nutritional outcomes in children and adolescents.
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.