ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Receiving Home Enteral Nutrition with a Disease-Specific Tool (NutriQoL
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Home enteral nutrition (HEN) is recommended for patients with nutritional requirements who can stay outside the hospital environment. HEN guidelines recommend assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to evaluate the effect of the treatment. In this context, NutriQoL Methods: This was a prospective observational study was conducted in two Spanish hospitals to record and describe the evolution of HRQoL, in patients receiving HEN in routine clinical practice using NutriQoL Results: Fifty-seven patients participated in the study, of whom 36 patients attended at least one visit during the 6-month follow-up period. Most of them were at risk or moderate malnutrition (61.1%) or showed severe malnutrition (27.8%) at baseline. The mean (SD) NutriQoL score obtained at baseline was 69.4 (12.6), which increased to 71.0 (14.6) and 71.8 (14.1) at 3 and 6 months of follow-up, respectively. Approximately 60% of patients had good HRQoL, while 25% had excellent HRQoL. At 6-months follow-up visit, 46.4% of patients had good HRQoL, and 32.1% excellent. Patients receiving oral HEN showed a higher score compared with those fed by a non-oral method/route. Proportion of patients at risk or with moderate malnutrition maintained at 6 months, and there were no patients with severe malnutrition, increasing the proportion of patients with normal nutrition to 38.5%. Additionally, physicians considered HRQoL evaluation useful for clinical practice. Limitations of the study include small sample size, and a loss follow-up after 6 months. Conclusion: The assessment of HRQoL evolution using NutriQoL in patients receiving HEN appears valuable, as it provides valuable insights contributing to a more comprehensive nutritional evaluation and enhancing holistic patient care.
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.