ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Low referral uptake, not patient adherence, limits implementation of early nutritional screening in head and neck and upper gastrointestinal cancers.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malnutrition is highly prevalent in patients with head and neck and upper gastrointestinal cancers and is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. Despite guideline recommendations, early nutritional screening remains inconsistently implemented in routine oncology care. Methods: This single-center prospective feasibility study evaluated the implementation of an early nutritional screening and intervention pathway in newly diagnosed oncology patients with head and neck and upper gatrointestinal cancers. Eligible patients were enrolled within 7 days of their first oncology consultation and entered a structured nutritional pathway including baseline (T0), one-month (T1), and two-month (T2) assessments. Nutritional evaluation included MUST screening, anthropometric measures, bioelectrical impedance analysis, handgrip strength, biochemical parameters, and patient-reported outcomes (ESAS and FACT-G). Feasibility endpoints included referral, enrolment, and adherence rates. Results: Among 550 eligible patients, 77 were enrolled (14%). Once enrolled, adherence to the pathway was high (91%). At baseline, 47% of patients were classified as at high nutritional risk. Serum biochemical markers, available in a subset of patients, were consistent with mild nutritional alterations. During follow-up, body weight, handgrip strenght, biochemical and bioelectrical impedance parameters, and overall quality of life remained stable. Significant improvements were observed in selected symptoms, including fatigue, nausea, and well-being/malaise. Conclusion: Early nutritional screening is feasible and highly acceptable once implemented. However, implementation at the population level is limited by low and non-systematic referral rates, highlighting a critical gap in routine oncology 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.