Oral Nutrition Supplement Improved Nutritional Status in Malnourished Hip Fracture Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study

Abstract

Background: Nutritional status has been shown to predict post-surgical recovery and clinical outcomes in orthopedic patients. This study evaluated the effects of an oral nutrition supplement (ONS) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. Materials and Methods: In a multicenter, prospective, randomized study (ClincialTrials.gov, registration number NCT01011608), malnourished patients (n=127) who had surgery within 14

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements in frail older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…46,47 11 studies were included in the effectiveness review and in the adherence and acceptability review, 46,[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] of which ten articles were included in the meta-analysis (Otten and colleagues' study 53 was excluded from the meta-analysis because they compared dietary counselling with ONS and dietary counselling, whereas this meta-analysis included only studies comparing ONS with standard care). 46,[48][49][50][51][52][54][55][56][57] One study 47 was included in the costeffectiveness review, which was based on an RCT included in the effectiveness review. 48 All 11 studies included in the effectiveness review were RCTs; one study was a cross-over RCT, 56 four studies were multiarm RCTs, 46,52,55,57 and the remain ing six studies used a parallel group design with two groups.…”

“…48 All 11 studies included in the effectiveness review were RCTs; one study was a cross-over RCT, 56 four studies were multiarm RCTs, 46,52,55,57 and the remain ing six studies used a parallel group design with two groups. [48][49][50][51]53,54 822 people were recruited across the 11 studies. The smallest study 56 recruited 39 participants, whereas the largest 48 recruited 104 participants.…”

“…One study 48 included in the effectiveness review (based in nursing or residential homes in the UK) had conducted a corresponding cost-effectiveness analysis. 47 Two studies took place in Australia, 50,52 two in France, 46,57 one in Germany, 53 two in Sweden, 55,56 and one each in the UK, 48 Russia, 49 Canada, 54 and Taiwan. 51 Five studies were set in nursing or residential homes; 46,48,51,56,57 of these, four studies took place in multiple nursing homes.…”

“…Two further studies were set in the community, 54,55 and three were set in hospital. 49,50,52 One study stated it was conducted after discharge from hospital. 53 Reporting on intervention duration and follow-up was often inadequate and included insufficient detail.…”

“…Four studies were funded by alternative sources and two studies did not include details of funding or conflicts of interest. Five (45%) of the 11 included RCTs were judged to be at low risk of selection bias, 46,48,54,55,57 allocation concealment, 48,49,52,55,56 detection bias, 48,51,52,54,57 and selective reporting bias. 46,48,54,55,57 Of the 11 RCTs, four (36%) 46,49,56,57 were considered to be at high risk of attrition bias and six (64%) 48,52,53,[55][56][57] were judged to be at an unclear risk of other bias.…”