Systematic review of tailored dietary advice and dietitian involvement in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading public health concern globally. Interdisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programs exist and should ideally consider nutritional health impacts since the nutritional status of COPD patients is often compromised. However, little is known about the role of dietary counseling in COPD management. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does providing tailored dietary advice to adult patients with COPD improve outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. The following electronic databases and registrars were used: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The original search was conducted in June 2021 with an updated search conducted on February 21, 2024. Validity and bias assessments were completed. RESULTS: We selected 14 articles for inclusion. Multiple outcomes were considered including functional, body composition, nutritional intake, cost analyses, quality of life, and others. The most common measured outcomes were quality of life and the 6 min walk test. A number of interventions were used with most interventions being interdisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation packages where nutrition counseling was one component. A number of interventions showed positive results but there tended to be inconsistency. INTERPRETATION: Evidence shows that various interventions appear to improve outcomes, but it is difficult to determine if improvements are due to nutritional intervention specifically or a rehabilitation program as a whole. More specific randomized controlled trials should be completed regarding tailored nutritional counseling and therapy in adults with COPD to determine the benefits attributable to nutritional interventions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".