Wong Alvin, Huang Yingxiao, Sowa Przemyslaw M, Banks Merrilyn D, Bauer Judith D
Department of Dietetics, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Department of Dietetics, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2023 Sep;118(3):672-696. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.07.003. Epub 2023 Jul 10.
Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) on various nutritional interventions in hospitalized patients with or at risk of malnutrition are available, but disagreements among findings raise questions about their validity in guiding practice.
We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews in which all appropriate studies included in SRMAs are combined) to assess the quality of reviews, identify the types of interventions available (excluding enteral and parenteral nutrition), and re-analyze the effectiveness of interventions.
The databases MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. AMSTAR-2 was used for quality assessment and GRADE for certainty of evidence. Updated meta-analyses with risk of bias (ROB) by Cochrane ROB 2.0 were performed. Pooled effects were reported as relative risk (RR), with zero-events and publication bias adjustments, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) performed for mortality, readmissions, complications, length of stay, and quality of life.
A total of 66 randomized controlled trials were cited by the 19 SRMAs included in this umbrella review, and their data extracted and analyzed. Most clinical outcomes were discordant with variable effect sizes in both directions. In trials with low ROB, interventions targeting nutritional intake reduce mortality at 30 d (15 studies, n: 4156, RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.94, P: 0.02, I: 6%, Certainty: High), 6 mo (27 studies, n: 6387, RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.92, P = 0.001, I: 4%, Certainty: Moderate), and 12 mo (27 studies, n: 6387, RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.95, P: 0.01, I: 33%, Certainty: Moderate), with TSA verifying an adequate sample size and robustness of the meta-analysis.
Existing evidence is sufficient to show that nutritional intervention is effective for mortality outcomes at 30 d, 6 mo, and 12 mo. Future clinical trials should focus on the effect of nutritional interventions on other clinical outcomes.
The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022341031).
关于营养不良住院患者或有营养不良风险患者的各种营养干预措施,已有多项系统评价和荟萃分析(SRMA),但研究结果之间的分歧引发了对其指导实践有效性的质疑。
我们进行了一项伞状评价(对系统评价的系统评价,其中纳入SRMA的所有合适研究都进行合并),以评估评价的质量,确定可用干预措施的类型(不包括肠内和肠外营养),并重新分析干预措施的有效性。
检索了MEDLINE/PubMed、CINAHL、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和谷歌学术等数据库。使用AMSTAR-2进行质量评估,使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。采用Cochrane ROB 2.0对有偏倚风险(ROB)的更新荟萃分析进行。合并效应以相对风险(RR)报告,并进行零事件和发表偏倚调整,对死亡率、再入院率、并发症、住院时间和生活质量进行试验序贯分析(TSA)。
本伞状评价纳入的19项SRMA共引用了66项随机对照试验,并提取和分析了它们的数据。大多数临床结果不一致,效应大小在两个方向上都有变化。在ROB较低的试验中,针对营养摄入的干预措施可降低30天(15项研究,n:4156,RR:0.72,95%CI:0.55,0.94,P:0.02,I:6%,确定性:高)、6个月(27项研究,n:6387,RR:0.81,95%CI:0.71,0.92,P = 0.001,I:4%,确定性:中等)和12个月(27项研究,n:6387,RR:0.80,95%CI:0.67,0.95,P:0.01,I:33%,确定性:中等)的死亡率,TSA验证了荟萃分析的样本量充足且稳健。
现有证据足以表明营养干预对30天、6个月和12个月的死亡率结局有效。未来的临床试验应关注营养干预对其他临床结局的影响。
该方案已在PROSPERO(CRD42022341031)上注册。