SynthesisNutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition2025
Application of the Knowledge-to-Action framework in translating nutrition and dietetic knowledge into practice: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of the Knowledge-to-Action framework in translating nutrition and dietetic knowledge into practice: A systematic review.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Maternal nutritional knowledge and child anthropometric outcomes in preschool children: A cross-sectional study.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
- Individual and Organizational Level Barriers to Post-exposure Prophylaxis Uptake for Hepatitis B Virus Among Midwives in Northern Ghana: A Qualitative Enquiry.Health services insights · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework was first developed in 2006 and has become a widely used tool to support translating evidence into practice. Despite its broad application, no systematic review has examined its use in studies of nutrition research translation. This systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024613147) aims to describe the characteristics of nutrition translation studies that use the KTA, the application of the KTA stages, and the actors involved in the knowledge translation effort and study quality.
methodsSearches were performed across four databases to include original nutrition studies in English that cite and apply the KTA from 2006 to April 2025. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. The appraisal of the study quality used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
resultsTwenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, and most were conducted in a hospital setting (n = 15) by multidisciplinary teams targeting change in healthcare workforce practices. Studies addressed a range of evidence-practice gaps in topics such as malnutrition (n = 5), postsurgical feeding or enteral nutrition (n = 5), infant feeding (n = 2), and dietary patterns (n = 2). The KTA was used flexibly either partly or as a complete cycle, often with integration of other implementation frameworks and mixed methodologies, tailored to project context. Although the quality of studies was generally high, the lack of quantitative baseline data in most studies limited assessment of effectiveness.
conclusionThe KTA framework is an adaptable and valuable tool that has been used to address evidence-practice gaps across broad topics related to nutrition and dietetics.
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.