Meta‐analysis: oral or enteral nutritional supplementation in cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a common and clinically significant problem in patients with cirrhosis. The impact of nutritional therapy remains unclear. AIM: To provide an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of oral or enteral nutritional supplementation (ONS or ENS) on nutritional and clinical outcomes in adult patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: The primary outcome measure was survival. Included: full-text English language RCTs investigating ONS or ENS vs. a standard nonsupplemented diet in patients with cirrhosis. Excluded: parenteral or branched chain amino acids intervention; treatment duration ≤7 days, exclusive evaluation of posttransplant, postsurgical or quality of life outcomes. RESULTS: Six trials (4 ONS/2 ENS) and 470 patients were included with 71% males and median age 53 years. When all studies were combined, there was no reduction in mortality [Relative risk (RR): 0.75 (0.42, 1.32), P = 0.31]. Subgroup analysis of 3 of the 4 ONS studies did demonstrate a mortality reduction [RR: 0.40 (0.18, 0.90), P = 0.03]. Of the 2 ENS studies, one included the sickest patients in the meta-analysis (82% Child Pugh C) and the other had the shortest mean intervention duration (8.6 days), possibly impacting the potential for benefit. Study quality was suboptimal (median Jadad = 2). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is insufficient evidence to definitively state that oro-enteral nutritional supplementation impacts clinical outcomes, on the basis of this analysis, one can be cautiously optimistic that there is the potential for benefit without an increase in adverse events. Adequately powered, Child Pugh stratified studies of at least 1 month in duration are needed to clarify the impact on relevant clinical outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".