Evidence Hub

Evaluating physiological barriers to oral intake in hospitalized patients: A secondary analysis

Elizabeth Viner Smith, I. W. Kouw, M. Summers, R. Louis, M. Chapman, L. Chapple

JPEN - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2024

644 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Oral intake in hospitalized patients is frequently below estimated targets. Multiple physiological symptoms are proposed to impact oral intake, yet many have not been quantified objectively.

AIM

To describe the challenges of objectively measuring physiological nutrition-impacting symptoms in hospitalized patients.

METHOD

A secondary analysis of data from a single-center, descriptive cohort study of physiological nutrition-impacting symptoms in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and general medical patients was conducted. Demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted for patients who completed the original study and collected retrospectively for those who were screened and recruited but did not complete the original study. Reasons for patient exclusion from the original study were quantified from the screening database. Descriptive data are reported as mean ± SD, median [interquartile range], or number (percentage).

RESULTS

ICU survivors and general medical patients were screened for inclusion in the original study between March 1 and December 23, 2021. Of the 644 patients screened, 97% did not complete the study, with 93% excluded at screening. Of the 266 ICU survivors and 398 general medical patients screened, 89% and 95% were excluded, respectively. Major exclusion criteria included the inability to follow commands or give informed consent (n = 155, 25%), the inability to consume the easy-to-chew and thin-fluid buffet meal, and imminent discharge…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 644 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free