The effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formula on clinical outcomes in adults: A systematic review.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Lina Breik, Lisa Barker, Judy Bauer, Zoe E Davidson
{"title":"The effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formula on clinical outcomes in adults: A systematic review.","authors":"Lina Breik, Lisa Barker, Judy Bauer, Zoe E Davidson","doi":"10.1111/1747-0080.12912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore the effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formulas on nutritional status, quality of life, anthropometry, diarrhoea and tube blockages in adults receiving tube feeding.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42022372443). Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, CENTRAL) were searched from commencement of database to 14th June 2023 to identify studies comparing blended tube feeding to conventional formulas in adults receiving tube feeding. Certainty assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework, and a narrative synthesis of results is provided.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 4227 studies screened, eight were included (total n = 763 patients, 9-215 patients). Three studies were hospital-based and five were home-based with duration from 8 days-8 months. Blended tube feeding and conventional formulas were nutritionally equivalent in only three studies; energy and protein concentration of formulas ranged from 1.7-7.1 kJ/mL and 21-68.5 g/L for the blended tube feeding groups, and 4.2-6.7 kJ/mL and 39-100 g/L for the conventional groups. No studies assessed nutrition status or quality of life using validated measures. Blended tube feeding was associated with a clinically relevant reduction in diarrhoea with a low level of certainty. For remaining outcomes, there were inconclusive findings and an overall very low certainty of evidence for each.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formulas on all outcomes remains uncertain. Blended tube feeding may reduce the incidence of diarrhoea. Future research using nutritionally equivalent comparisons and validated outcome measures is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":19368,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Dietetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12912","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To explore the effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formulas on nutritional status, quality of life, anthropometry, diarrhoea and tube blockages in adults receiving tube feeding.

Methods: The protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42022372443). Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, CENTRAL) were searched from commencement of database to 14th June 2023 to identify studies comparing blended tube feeding to conventional formulas in adults receiving tube feeding. Certainty assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework, and a narrative synthesis of results is provided.

Results: From 4227 studies screened, eight were included (total n = 763 patients, 9-215 patients). Three studies were hospital-based and five were home-based with duration from 8 days-8 months. Blended tube feeding and conventional formulas were nutritionally equivalent in only three studies; energy and protein concentration of formulas ranged from 1.7-7.1 kJ/mL and 21-68.5 g/L for the blended tube feeding groups, and 4.2-6.7 kJ/mL and 39-100 g/L for the conventional groups. No studies assessed nutrition status or quality of life using validated measures. Blended tube feeding was associated with a clinically relevant reduction in diarrhoea with a low level of certainty. For remaining outcomes, there were inconclusive findings and an overall very low certainty of evidence for each.

Conclusion: The effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formulas on all outcomes remains uncertain. Blended tube feeding may reduce the incidence of diarrhoea. Future research using nutritionally equivalent comparisons and validated outcome measures is required.

混合软管喂养与传统配方奶粉相比对成人临床结果的影响:系统综述。
目的:探讨与传统配方相比,混合管饲对接受管饲的成人的营养状况、生活质量、人体测量、腹泻和管堵塞的影响:研究方案已注册(PROSPERO CRD42022372443)。对五个数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、Scopus、CENTRAL)进行了检索,检索时间从数据库建立之初至 2023 年 6 月 14 日,目的是找出在接受管饲的成人中比较混合管饲与传统配方奶粉的研究。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具和推荐、评估、发展和评价分级框架进行了确定性评估,并对结果进行了叙述性综合:从筛选出的 4227 项研究中,纳入了 8 项(总人数 = 763 名患者,9-215 名患者)。三项研究以医院为基础,五项研究以家庭为基础,研究持续时间从 8 天到 8 个月不等。仅有三项研究显示混合管饲配方奶粉和常规配方奶粉的营养成分相当;混合管饲配方奶粉组的能量和蛋白质浓度分别为 1.7-7.1 千焦/毫升和 21-68.5 克/升,常规配方奶粉组的能量和蛋白质浓度分别为 4.2-6.7 千焦/毫升和 39-100 克/升。没有研究采用有效的方法评估营养状况或生活质量。混合管喂养与临床相关的腹泻减少有关,但确定性较低。其余结果均无定论,证据的确定性总体很低:结论:与传统配方奶粉相比,混合管道喂养对所有结果的影响仍不确定。混合管饲可能会降低腹泻的发生率。未来的研究需要采用营养等效的比较方法和有效的结果测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nutrition & Dietetics
Nutrition & Dietetics 医学-营养学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.10%
发文量
69
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition & Dietetics is the official journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Covering all aspects of food, nutrition and dietetics, the Journal provides a forum for the reporting, discussion and development of scientifically credible knowledge related to human nutrition and dietetics. Widely respected in Australia and around the world, Nutrition & Dietetics publishes original research, methodology analyses, research reviews and much more. The Journal aims to keep health professionals abreast of current knowledge on human nutrition and diet, and accepts contributions from around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信