Cited by 49Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyDietetics, Nutrition, and EducationNutrition and Health in Aging

Comparing nutritional requirements, provision and intakes among patients prescribed therapeutic diets in hospital: An observational study

Open access
Rattray, Megan, Desbrow, Ben, Roberts, Shelley·2017·Nutrition

Abstract

Objective Nutrition is an important part of recovery for hospitalized patients. The aim of this study was to assess the nutritional adequacy of meals provided to and consumed by patients prescribed a therapeutic diet. Methods Patients (N = 110) prescribed a therapeutic diet (texture-modified, low-fiber, oral fluid, or food allergy or intolerance diets) for medical or nutritional reasons were recruited from six wards of a tertiary hospital. Complete (24-h) dietary provisions and intakes were directly observed and analyzed for energy (kJ) and protein (g) content. A chart audit gathered demographic, clinical, and nutrition-related information to calculate each patient's disease-specific estimated energy and protein requirements. Provisions and intake were considered adequate if they met ≥75% of the patient's estimated requirements. Results Mean energy and protein provided to patients (5844 ± 2319 kJ, 53 ± 30 g) were significantly lower than their mean estimated requirements (8786 ± 1641 kJ, 86 ± 18 g). Consequently, mean nutrition intake (4088 ± 2423 kJ, 37 ± 28 g) were significantly lower than estimated requirements. Only 37% (41) of patients were provided with and 18% (20) consumed adequate nutrition to meet their estimated requirements. No therapeutic diet provided adequate food to meet the energy and protein requirements of all recipients. Patients on oral fluid diets had the highest estimated requirements (9497 ± 1455 kJ, 93 ± 16 g) and the lowest nutrient provision (3497 ±…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nut.2017.03.006

Cites

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?

  • Rattray et al. performed an observational study in 110 patients, and showed that patients are provided 75% of estimated needs, and consume less than required (~50%).

    “Rattray et al performed an observational study in 110 566 patients, and showed that patients are provided 75% of estimated needs, and consume less than 567 required (~50%) [43].”

    From ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition (2021) · cites this paper as [43]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rattray, M., Desbrow, B., & Roberts, S.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Rattray, Megan
Venue
Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
39-40
Pages
50-56
ISSN
0899-9007 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2598473216
Cited by
49
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
Keywords
dietary therapy, hospitalized patients, nutritional adequacy, energy requirements, protein requirements, dietary intake, nutrient supply, malnutrition risk, texture-modified diets, low-fiber diet, hospital food service
MeSH terms
Energy Intake, Diet, Female, Food Service, Hospital, Hospitalization, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Middle Aged, Nutritional Requirements, Queensland, Nutrition Assessment, 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