SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Digital technologies in inpatient foodservice and nutrition care: a systematic scoping review of intake, plate waste, measurement, and implementation.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital technologies increasingly support inpatient meal ordering, dietary intake recording, automated measurement, decision support, and foodservice workflows, but evidence across technical, service, nutritional, and clinical outcomes remains fragmented. Objective: To map digital technologies embedded in hospital foodservice and nutrition care, separate technical-validation, service process, and patient outcomes, and identify implementation and translational gaps. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus were searched from inception to 30 June 2026. Two reviewers independently screened records and appraised included reports; one reviewer charted data and a second checked all entries. Findings were synthesized descriptively without meta-analysis or certainty grading. Results: Twenty-five reports published between 1996 and 2026 were included; most were single site, nonrandomized, or early stage validation studies. Technical-validation studies reported improved completeness or agreement for some digital measurement tools, but artificial-intelligence performance varied and no artificial-intelligence system had independent external validation. Service-process studies reported favorable signals for ordering flexibility, documentation, selected foodservice costs, and plate waste in some settings. Several nonrandomized comparative studies reported higher energy and/or protein intake, but digital functions were usually bundled with menu, staffing, or delivery redesign, so the independent effect of the digital component remains uncertain. One randomized trial improved nutrition documentation and care planning without changing weight or length of stay. Sustained nutritional recovery, downstream clinical outcomes, formal cost-effectiveness, and equity were rarely evaluated. Conclusion: The available evidence is most suitable for mapping technologies and proximal signals, not for firm conclusions about independent clinical effectiveness. Multicenter comparative studies should link validated measurement to documented clinical responses and evaluate generalizability, economics, and equitable access.
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.