Cited by 376Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyNutrition and Health in AgingMuscle metabolism and nutrition

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of high protein oral nutritional supplements

Cawood, A.L., Elia, M., Stratton, R.J.·2012·Ageing Research Reviews

Abstract

Disease-related malnutrition is common, detrimentally affecting the patient and healthcare economy. Although use of high protein oral nutritional supplements (ONS) has been recommended to counteract the catabolic effects of disease and to facilitate recovery from illness, there is a lack of systematically obtained evidence to support these recommendations. This systematic review involving 36 randomised controlled trials (RCT) (n=3790) (mean age 74 years; 83% of trials in patients >65 years) and a series of meta-analyses of high protein ONS (>20% energy from protein) demonstrated a range of effects across settings and patient groups in favour of the high protein ONS group. These included reduced complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.68 (95%CI 0.55-0.83), p<0.001, 10 RCT, n=1830); reduced readmissions to hospital (OR 0.59 (95%CI 0.41-0.84), p=0.004, 2 RCT, n=546); improved grip strength (1.76 kg (95%CI 0.36-3.17), p<0.014, 4 RCT, n=219); increased intake of protein (p<0.001) and energy (p<0.001) with little reduction in normal food intake and improvements in weight (p<0.001). There was inadequate information to compare standard ONS (<20% energy from protein) with high protein ONS (>20% energy from protein). The systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that high protein supplements produce clinical benefits, with economic implications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.arr.2011.12.008

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cawood, A. L., Elia, M., & Stratton, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Nutricia (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Cawood, A.L.
Venue
Ageing Research Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
278-296
ISSN
1568-1637 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085351092
Cited by
376
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ageing Research Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
disease-related malnutrition, protein intake, hospital readmission, complications, grip strength, weight gain, energy intake, older adults, economic implications
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Energy Intake, Dietary Proteins, Energy Metabolism, Enteral Nutrition, Humans, Middle Aged, Nutritional Status, Risk Factors, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Evidence-Based Medicine, Dietary Supplements, Recovery of Function, Malnutrition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review