ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Clinical Decision Support for Adult Enteral Nutrition: Literature Overview and Preliminary Hospital-Based Evaluation.
Review in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleClinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are increasingly used to enhance medical decision-making, including nutrition support.
objectiveThis study aimed to narratively review CDSS tools for enteral nutrition (EN) and to preliminarily evaluate a locally developed internal-use CDSS designed to calculate patients' nutritional requirements and assist in the selection of EN and oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in adult hospitalized patients.
methodsLiterature search was conducted in PubMed to identify existing CDSS tools used for assisting EN. Additionally, the internal-use CDSS was pilot-tested in 27 adult inpatients admitted to a private hospital in Athens, Greece. Differences in the time required to prepare the manually derived EN/ONS plan and the CDSS-derived plan were recorded. Discrepancies between the two approaches were assessed.
resultsFourteen studies were identified. Although the results were inconsistent, the application of a CDSS seems to reduce calculation time, increase dietitian referrals, initiate faster enteral feeding, improve nutrient delivery, decrease nutritional risk and was associated with fewer feeding-related medical errors. In the pilot-test of the internal-use CDSS, the time required for nutrition planning decreased from 9.01 ± 0.21 min to 4.01 ± 0.35 min per patient. The CDSS and manual approach selected the same EN/ONS products in 66.7% of the cases.
conclusionImplementing CDSSs in hospitals may streamline workflow, reduce calculation errors and shorten the time needed per patient. The specific CDSS may reduce the time required for EN/ONS planning and may help standardize formula selection in adult hospitalized patients. These findings require confirmation in larger, multicenter studies with predefined clinical and workflow outcomes.
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.