Nutrition support vs no intervention, placebo, or treatment: at maximum
Nutrition support may leads to lower ‐ at maximum compared with no intervention, placebo, or treatment (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Nutrition support vs no intervention, placebo, or treatment ‐ at maximum · hospitalised adults at nutritional risk Nutrition support may leads to lower ‐ at maximum compared with no intervention, placebo, or treatment (low certainty). Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.93 [0.88, 0.99] | 127 studies · 23170 participants | Low |
Nutrition support vs no intervention, placebo, or treatment at maximum · hospitalised adults at nutritional risk Nutrition support may leads to lower at maximum compared with no intervention, placebo, or treatment (low certainty). Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.91 [0.85, 0.97] | 137 studies · 23413 participants | Low |
Nutrition support vs no intervention, placebo, or treatment at maximum · hospitalised adults at nutritional risk Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 3961 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.