SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Comparison of EPA and DHA&EPA on body weight, BMI, and lean body mass in cancer patients: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of different types of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (ω-3 PUFA) supplements (EPA alone vs. DHA&EPA combined) on body weight, body mass index (BMI), and lean body mass (LBM) in cancer patients through a network meta-analysis and to assess confidence in the results using the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) framework.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials databases. A total of 1995 studies were initially identified, and 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1892 cancer patients were ultimately included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A random-effects model was used to perform the network meta-analysis. The confidence in the evidence was evaluated using the CINeMA tool, considering within-study bias, reporting bias, indirectness, imprecision, heterogeneity, and incoherence.
resultsThe network meta-analysis included 25 studies on body weight, 15 studies on BMI, and 6 studies on LBM. Among 25 studies assessing body weight, the DHA&EPA supplementation group showed statistically significant improvements compared to the control group (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-2.16, P < 0.05), with a surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) score of 48, suggesting modest superiority among compared interventions. CINeMA analysis for body weight demonstrated moderate confidence in the evidence, with concerns related to the heterogeneity and incoherence. For BMI, based on 15 studies, the DHA&EPA group also showed significant improvements compared to the control group (SMD = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.04-0.92, P < 0.05), with a SUCRA score of 74. CINeMA evaluation for BMI indicated high confidence in the evidence, with minimal concerns in most domains. For LBM, no significant effects were observed for either EPA alone or DHA&EPA supplementation across six studies. The CINeMA analysis for LBM indicated moderate confidence in the evidence, primarily due to imprecision and incoherence. Funnel plot analysis and Egger's regression test showed no evidence of significant publication bias across all outcomes.
conclusionOmega-3 PUFA supplementation, particularly the combination of DHA&EPA, may improve body weight and BMI in cancer patients, with moderate to high confidence in the evidence. However, no significant effects were observed on LBM, and the confidence in the result was moderate. Further high-quality RCTs are required to validate these findings, address heterogeneity, and determine the optimal type and dosage of supplements for nutritional interventions in cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41286390What 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.