Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42094186›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026

Structured proactive nutritional care delivered via a digital follow-up platform is associated with better postoperative outcomes in gastric cancer patients after radical gastrectomy.

Mao Shu, Yujun Li, Yongshan Feng, Xia Huang, Yiqiong Yin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mao ShuWest China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yujun LiDepartment of General Surgery, West China Tianfu Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yongshan FengDepartment of General Surgery, West China Tianfu Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Xia HuangDepartment of General Surgery, West China Tianfu Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yiqiong YinWest China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the association of a structured, proactive nutritional care model delivered via a self-developed digital follow-up platform, compared with routine low-intensity post-discharge follow-up, with nutritional outcomes, clinical endpoints, and process indicators in patients after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer, compared with routine minimal post-discharge management. Methods: A retrospective controlled study was conducted, including 150 patients who underwent radical resection for gastric cancer between January 2022 and December 2022. The intervention group (n = 100) received care via the digital follow-up platform combined with individualized nutrition prescriptions, while the control group (n = 50) received conventional discharge education, outpatient visits, and telephone follow-ups. Follow-up assessments were performed at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Outcomes included body composition (weight, BMI, FFM, SMM, phase angle), nutritional status (PG-SGA, GLIM criteria), laboratory parameters (albumin, prealbumin, PNI), quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-STO22), psychological status (HADS), and nutritional prescription compliance rates. The primary outcome was the remission rate of GLIM-defined malnutrition at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included complications, readmission rate, process indicators, and the return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT). To avoid distortion of median times and time-to-event comparisons, patients who did not receive chemotherapy were treated as right-censored data in survival analyses rather than being recorded as 0 days. Statistical analyses involved linear mixed models, multivariable logistic regression, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were balanced across the 150 patients with complete follow-up data. At 12 months, the intervention group showed less reduction in body weight and BMI (-2.3 ± 1.9 kg vs -4.6 ± 2.5 kg, P < 0.01), better preservation of FFM and SMM (aMD ≈ +0.9 kg, P ≤ 0.004), and a net increase in phase angle (+0.4° vs -0.1°, P = 0.003). The GLIM-defined malnutrition remission rate was 58.0% vs 34.0% (aOR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.14-4.29). The intervention group showed lower rates of complications (21.0% vs 40.0%) and readmissions (10.0% vs 24.0%), as well as a shorter median RIOT by 13 days (32 days vs 45 days, P = 0.02). Higher compliance rates for energy and protein targets were observed in the intervention group (71%/66% vs 53%/43%, P < 0.001). The timely data upload rate was 89%, and the median alert response time was 14 hours. A dose-response pattern was observed between platform engagement and nutritional improvement, with protein intake compliance identified as a potential partial mediator. Conclusion: A structured nutritional care model facilitated by the digital follow-up platform was associated with better nutritional and clinical outcomes in patients after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. These observed associations may be related to enhanced compliance and timely intervention. This model is low-cost, reproducible, and scalable, and may represent a promising approach to postoperative nutritional management.

Indexed as

digital health platformgastric cancerGLIM criteriapersonalized nutritional supportpostoperative malnutrition

Identifiers

PMID42094186
PMCPMC13138984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.