Trial reportJournal of nutritional science2026
A randomised controlled crossover study to assess adherence and palatability of a porridge supplement compared to a drink-based supplement in hospitalised older adults at risk of malnutrition.
Trial report in Journal of nutritional science, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) are essential adjuncts in managing malnutrition in hospitalised older people. This study aimed to explore the adherence and palatability of a new porridge supplement (PS) compared to a standard drink-based supplement (DS) in hospitalised older adults. A single-centre multi-method randomised controlled crossover study was conducted on adults aged ≥65 years at risk of malnutrition (Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool score 1-4). Each participant was prescribed PS (16 g protein; 249 kcal) and DS (18 g protein; 306 kcal) twice per day for 4 days in crossover sequence. ONS leftovers were weighed, and adherence calculated (% consumed). Palatability ratings were assessed with a 7-point Likert scale, and interviews were conducted with 9 older adults and 5 staff to explore product acceptability. Twenty-seven older people (mean age 80 years, 17 female) participated. Median daily PS intake (26.31% [IQR 10.23-48.02]) was significantly lower compared to DS (66.8% [IQR 26.29-75.37]), and texture of PS was significantly disliked compared to DS. There were no significant differences in the absolute volume consumed between products, and supplements did not replace normal dietary intake. Changes in physical ability and appetite, the hospital culture (e.g., staff attitudes), and palatability (e.g., thickness and taste) of products influenced ONS acceptability. To improve patient-centred nutritional care, participants requested a wider in-hospital range of food-based supplementation with natural ingredients and enhanced training for staff in nutritional 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.