Cited by 40Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyHealth Sciences Research and EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Meta-analysis is not enough: The critical role of pathophysiology in determining optimal care in clinical nutrition

Soeters, Peter, Bozzetti, Federico, Cynober, Luc, Elia, Marinos, Shenkin, Alan, Sobotka, Lubos·2016·Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Evidence based medicine has preferably been based on prospective randomized controlled trials (PRCT's) and subsequent meta-analyses in many fields including nutrition and metabolism. These meta-analyses often yield convincing, contradictory or no proof of effectiveness. Consequently recommendations and guidelines of varying validity and quality have been published, often failing to convince the medical, insurance and government worlds to support nutritional care. Causes for lack of adequate proof of effectiveness are manifold. Many studies and meta-analyses lacked pathophysiological depth in design and interpretation. Study populations were not homogenous and endpoints not always clearly defined. Patients were included not at nutritional risk, unlikely to benefit from nutritional intervention. Others received nutrients in excess of requirements or tolerance due to organ failure. To include all available studies in a meta-analysis, study quality and homogeneity were only assessed on the basis of formal study design and outcome rather than on patient characteristics. Consequently, some studies showed benefit but included patients suffering harm, other studies were negative but contained patients that benefited. Recommendations did not always emphasize these shortcomings, confusing the medical and nutritional community and creating the impression that nutritional support is not beneficial. Strong reliance on meta-analyses and guidelines shifts the focus of education from studying clinical and nutritional physiology to memorizing guidelines. To prevent or improve malnutrition more physiological knowledge should be acquired to personalize nutritional practices and to more correctly value and evaluate the evidence. This also applies to the design and interpretation of PRCT's and meta-analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.08.008

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The frequent simultaneous presence of undernutrition and inflammation confounds the value of serum albumin as an indicator of adequate nutrition intake or uptake in a sizeable subgroup of individuals despite a significant population-level correlation.

    “These observations confound the value of serum albumin as an indicator of adequate nutrition intake or uptake in a sizeable subgroup of individuals despite a significant correlation in the population as a whole.108”

    From Hypoalbuminemia: Pathogenesis and Clinical Significance (2019) · cites this paper as [108]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soeters, P., Bozzetti, F., Cynober, L., Elia, M., Shenkin, A., & Sobotka, L.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • Hôpital Cochin (FR)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Charles University (CZ)
Corresponding author
Soeters, Peter
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
748-757
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1264721759
Cited by
40
References
73
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
pathophysiology, nutritional support, malnutrition, evidence-based medicine, meta-analysis limitations, randomized controlled trials, nutritional risk, personalized nutrition, nutritional physiology, clinical guidelines
MeSH terms
Diet, Healthy, Animals, Dietetics, Energy Metabolism, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Nutritional Support, Patient Selection, Evidence-Based Medicine, Biomedical Research, Malnutrition, Nutritional Sciences

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