SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Energy expenditure in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and 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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate estimation of energy needs is essential for effective nutrition interventions to improve outcomes in head and neck cancer (HNC). However, predictive equations used to estimate energy requirements may be inaccurate in cancer populations. To inform effective intervention delivery, this systematic review synthesised evidence regarding resting or total energy expenditure (REE or TEE) measured using reference methods (indirect calorimetry or doubly labelled water) in adults with any stage of HNC.
methodsFour databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL plus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched, and eligible studies included comparisons of energy expenditure to non-cancer controls, predictive equations, wearable devices, or repeated measurements before and after treatment. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
resultsEleven studies (n = 439) were included. All measured REE using indirect calorimetry; none assessed TEE or wearable devices. One study compared REE to non-cancer controls (n = 40 per group) and found no significant difference. Pooled pre-treatment REE was 1502 kcal/day (10 studies, n = 431). Measured REE was higher than predicted (mean difference 110 kcal/day, p = 0.001, eight studies, n = 333, low certainty) and decreased following treatment (mean difference -140 kcal/day, p < 0.001, five studies, n = 176, low certainty); differences were < 10% of overall REE and not considered clinically important.
conclusionAt the group level, REE was relatively stable throughout HNC treatment and reasonably estimated with predictive equations. However, to ensure accuracy in REE determination at the individual level, increased uptake of indirect calorimetry in HNC research is needed to guide clinical practice. PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, 23 May 2024 (CRD 2024533495).
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.