Cited by 25Nutrition and Health in AgingClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyDietetics, Nutrition, and Education

Supportive interventions for enhancing dietary intake in malnourished or nutritionally at‐risk adults: a systematic review of nonrandomised studies

Kimber, K., Gibbs, M., Weekes, C. E., Baldwin, C.·2015·Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics

Abstract

Background Supportive interventions for enhancing dietary intake in malnourished or nutritionally at risk adults are frequently recommended. A recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials identified limited and poor quality evidence to support their use. Observational studies have been shown to compliment and extend their evidence. This review aimed to synthesise evidence from nonrandomised studies aiming to improve nutritional intake in nutritionally vulnerable individuals and to describe their effects on cost, nutritional, clinical and patient centred outcomes. Methods Systematic searches of 10 electronic databases were undertaken to May 2013. Reference lists of identified studies and systematic reviews were scrutinised and hand searching of relevant meeting abstracts was undertaken. Titles and abstracts were reviewed, data extracted by two research-ers working independently and summarised using a structured narrative format. Results Forty-one studies (n = 3751 participants) were identified for inclusion. Interventions identified included changes to the organisation of nutritional care (n = 15), changes to the feeding environment (n = 11), modification to meals (n = 6), supplementation of meals (n = 7) and recipients of home delivered meals (n = 2). Eighteen of 23 studies reported improvements in nutritional intake; however, effects on nutritional status, clinical outcomes and costs were reported in few studies and findings were inconsistent. Eighteen studies re…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jhn.12329

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • A systematic review of non-randomized studies showed that improvements from organizational changes to nutritional support are not consistently demonstrated in non-polymorbid patients.

    “Despite these interesting studies in non-polymorbid patients, a systematic review of non-randomized studies showed that improvements are not consistently demonstrated [158].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kimber, K., Gibbs, M., Weekes, C. E., & Baldwin, C.
Affiliations
  • Barts Health NHS Trust (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Baldwin, C.
Venue
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-24
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
517-545
ISSN
  • 0952-3871 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-277X
OpenAlex
W1758787160
Cited by
25
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
British Dietetic Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Keywords
support measures, dietary intake, malnutrition, feeding conditions, home-delivered meals, nutritional status, patient experience, cost outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Food Services, Humans, Nutritional Status, Risk, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Dietary Supplements, 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