Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2025
Nutrition Support Interventions in Adults with Hematologic Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Newman Rachel, Rozga Mary, Handu Deepa, Fuchs-Tarlovsky Vanessa, Fay Lauren, Robien Kim, Moloney Lisa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is common in adults with hematologic malignancies and can negatively influence treatment outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated the association between nutrition support interventions compared with alternative or usual care, and primary outcomes (nutritional status, anthropometric measures, length of stay, readmissions, and quality of life) and secondary outcomes (survival, mucositis, graft-vs-host disease, delayed engraftment, inflammation, cost, and calorie or protein intake), in adults with hematologic malignancies.
METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Food Science Source, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched for controlled trials and observational studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals from January 2000 to July 2024. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RoB in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions for non-RCTs, and RoB in Nonrandomized Studies of Exposures for observational studies. Meta-analyses used a maximum likelihood random-effects model, and heterogeneity was quantified using I2. Certainty of evidence for primary outcomes was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method.
RESULTS: Twenty-one articles (11 RCTs, 9 cohorts, 1 non-RCT) representing 2122 participants were included. RoB was low (2 studies), some concerns/moderate (11 studies), and high (8 studies). Meta-analysis indicated a decrease in length of stay for enteral nutrition over parenteral nutrition, and no effect on length of stay for glutamine-enriched nutrition support; however, evidence was of very low certainty. Individualized nutrition support interventions, including the calculation of estimated needs, demonstrated benefit in decreasing weight loss. Overall, the association between nutrition support interventions and nutritional status, weight, readmissions, quality of life, and secondary outcomes was uncertain (very low certainty).
CONCLUSIONS: No single nutrition support intervention emerged as superior for all outcomes of interest, although current best practices were supported. Certainty of evidence was very low for primary outcomes, and heterogeneity limited conclusions for secondary outcomes. Further high-quality research is needed.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated the association between nutrition support interventions compared with alternative or usual care, and primary outcomes (nutritional status, anthropometric measures, length of stay, readmissions, and quality of life) and secondary outcomes (survival, mucositis, graft-vs-host disease, delayed engraftment, inflammation, cost, and calorie or protein intake), in adults with hematologic malignancies.
METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Food Science Source, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched for controlled trials and observational studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals from January 2000 to July 2024. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RoB in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions for non-RCTs, and RoB in Nonrandomized Studies of Exposures for observational studies. Meta-analyses used a maximum likelihood random-effects model, and heterogeneity was quantified using I2. Certainty of evidence for primary outcomes was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method.
RESULTS: Twenty-one articles (11 RCTs, 9 cohorts, 1 non-RCT) representing 2122 participants were included. RoB was low (2 studies), some concerns/moderate (11 studies), and high (8 studies). Meta-analysis indicated a decrease in length of stay for enteral nutrition over parenteral nutrition, and no effect on length of stay for glutamine-enriched nutrition support; however, evidence was of very low certainty. Individualized nutrition support interventions, including the calculation of estimated needs, demonstrated benefit in decreasing weight loss. Overall, the association between nutrition support interventions and nutritional status, weight, readmissions, quality of life, and secondary outcomes was uncertain (very low certainty).
CONCLUSIONS: No single nutrition support intervention emerged as superior for all outcomes of interest, although current best practices were supported. Certainty of evidence was very low for primary outcomes, and heterogeneity limited conclusions for secondary outcomes. Further high-quality research is needed.