Effects of high-protein supplementation during cancer therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Establishing the effectiveness of high-protein supplementation in reducing cancer-related side effects is crucial. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of high-protein supplementation on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing cancer therapy. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted on Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from inception until July 2023. Randomized controlled trials administering supplements with ≥10 g protein/serving, given to 20+ adult patients undergoing cancer therapy were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the effects of high-protein supplementation on the primary outcomes of body weight and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We employed a vote-counting approach based on effect direction for secondary outcomes (that is, body composition, muscle function, hospitalization, response to cancer therapy/toxicity, survival, and systemic inflammation). Risk-of-bias (ROB) was assessed. RESULTS: = 80%). No differences in HRQoL were observed; all studies assessing HRQoL were rated as high ROB. A beneficial effect on muscle mass was found in 11 of 13 studies, although most had a high ROB due to assessment techniques. When considering higher quality studies, evidence of a beneficial effect was found in 5 of 5 studies for muscle strength, and 3 of 4 for hospitalization rate. Effects on other secondary outcomes were inconsistent or limited. No serious adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: High-protein supplementation mitigates weight loss, improves muscle strength, and lowers hospitalization rates in patients undergoing cancer therapy. These positive clinical outcomes, along with a favorable safety profile, suggest that high-protein supplementation may be a valuable addition to medical practice. However, given the need for more robust trials and the high ROB observed in the existing studies, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42021237372.
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 | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".