ArticleJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association2026
Artificial Nutrition Support During Acute Illness in Pregnancy: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 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.
- Artificial Nutrition Support During Acute Illness in Pregnancy: A Scoping Review.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe delivery of artificial nutrition support during acute illness in patients who are pregnant is complex with considerations for both maternal and foetal health outcomes. However, there is little known about the research available to guide the artificial nutrition support during pregnancy. This scoping review aims to examine the literature related to artificial nutrition support practices during acute illness in pregnancy, to understand current research, identify gaps and inform directions for future research.
methodsThe review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic search of five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Maternal and Infant Care Database (MIDIRS)) was conducted. Eligible studies involved adult pregnant patients aged 18 or over, hospitalised across a variety of care settings, and receiving artificial nutrition in the form of enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition. Studies not written in English Language were excluded. Data were extracted on weight, gestation period, type and route of feeding, indication for artificial feeding, energy target and provision, protein target and provision, duration of intervention, micronutrient delivery and supplementation, method of delivery, foetal birthweight and maternal and foetal outcomes.
resultsA total of 24 studies were included of which the majority were case reports (n = 12 studies), followed by case series (n = 7), and only one randomised controlled trial (early enteral feeding vs standard care). The most common indication for artificial nutrition support was hyperemesis gravidarum (n = 14 studies) and the most common method was parenteral nutrition (n = 14). There was considerable heterogeneity in reporting of energy and protein targets and delivery, micronutrient supplementation, weight change over pregnancy and maternal and foetal outcomes.
conclusionsThis scoping review highlighted the very limited number of studies regarding artificial nutrition support during pregnancy. Hugh quality research is urgently required to inform guidelines and standardise and optimise management strategies and improve outcomes in this complex patient cohort.
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.