ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Comparison of nutritional outcomes and complication profiles of commercial enteral nutrition and homemade homogenate in patients with dysphagia who are chronically immobilized.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the nutritional outcomes and complications associated with homemade homogenate administered via nasogastric tube vs. a commercially available enteral nutrition formula in patients with dysphagia who are chronically immobilized. Methods: In a prospective randomized controlled trial, 135 patients were allocated to receive either homemade homogenate ( Results: By day 45, patients in the commercial formula group exhibited significantly greater improvement in serum and anthropometric nutritional indices compared to those in the homemade homogenate group. NRS2002 scores decreased more substantially in the commercial formula group at days 30 and 45. This group also experienced a lower incidence of pulmonary infections, gastrointestinal symptoms, and pressure ulcers. Among 15 samples of homemade homogenate, 4 exceeded the acceptable microbial colony count. Additionally, the homemade formula was lower in macro- and micronutrients and higher in sodium compared to the commercial preparation. Conclusion: Commercial enteral nutrient solution demonstrated superior efficacy in improving nutritional status and reducing complications in patients with dysphagia and prolonged immobility. Although homemade homogenate may be considered in resource-constrained settings, it requires careful formulation, enhanced hygienic preparation, and standardized storage protocols to ensure safety and nutritional adequacy.
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.