ArticleJPGN reports2026
Toward a single source of truth: The case for centralized nutrition documentation in electronic medical records.
Article in JPGN reports, 2026. 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
Objective: Nutrition is an essential component of care for all patients. However, electronic medical record (EMR) systems lack a centralized location for nutrition-related information. The absence of standardized documentation and workflows is misaligned with key domains of healthcare quality as defined by the Institute of Medicine- namely, safety, patient-centeredness, and efficiency. This study aims to identify opportunities for EMRs to enhance nutrition evaluation, management, and safety. Methods: A 12-item online survey was developed and distributed to pediatric healthcare providers to assess current practices in EMR documentation of nutrition information, identify nutrition-related adverse events, and elicit suggestions for improvements. Descriptive statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis test were utilized to analyze quantitative survey data. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically to identify key concerns and a core theory reflecting respondents' perspectives. Results: One-hundred and fifteen participants completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 23%. Only 54% of participants reported having a standardized EMR workflow for documenting food allergies and intolerances. Multiple challenges were reported in locating nutrition plans within the EMR, including absence of a standard location for information, lack of order interoperability across settings, and inconsistent information. Most respondents (73%) reported awareness of nutrition-related safety events at their institution. Conclusion: There is a critical need to optimize and standardize nutrition documentation within EMRs. Healthcare providers are calling for a unified, integrated system that distinguishes food allergies and intolerances, enhances the visibility of essential nutrition data, and links dietary information across departments and care settings to improve patient safety and care coordination.
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.