Dietitian's Journal

Entries in Evidence-based practice (10)

Wednesday
Oct142009

Nutrition in Bone Fracture Prevention & Healing: Part 3

 

X-ray image of hip, with top of femur broken (source)

 Today, three more resources on bone healing:

  1. A systematic review of nutrition support's effect on hip fracture healing;
  2. A special article on how to conduct a systematic review. Though it was done on hip fracture, the findings and conclusion can be applied to other search topics;
  3. One of the research articles included in the Cochrane Systematic Review.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review:

Source - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 3, 2009.

Title - Nutritional supplementation for hip fracture aftercare in older people.

Authors - Avenell, Alison;  Handoll, Helen HG

Abstract -

  Background - Older people with hip fractures are often malnourished at the time of fracture, and have poor food intake subsequently.

  Objective - To review the effects of nutritional interventions in older people recovering from hip fracture.

  Search Strategy - We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
(2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE, six other databases and reference lists. We contacted investigators and handsearched journals.

 Selection Criteria -  Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of nutritional interventions for people aged over 65 years with hip fracture.

 Data Collection & Analysis - Both authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We sought additional information from trialists, and pooled data for primary outcomes.

 Main Results -

  • Twenty-one randomised trials involving 1727 participants were included.
  • Overall trial quality was poor, specifically regarding allocation concealment, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis, and limited availability of outcome data.
  • Eight trials evaluated oral multinutrient feeds: providing non-protein energy, protein, some vitamins and minerals. Oral feeds had no statistically significant effect on mortality (15/161 versus 17/176; relative risk (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.68) but may reduce 'unfavourable outcome' (combined outcome of mortality and survivors with medical complications) (14/66 versus 26/73; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84).
  • Four trials examining nasogastric multinutrient feeding showed no evidence of an effect on mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97) but the studies were heterogeneous regarding case mix. Nasogastric feeding was poorly tolerated. There was insufficient information for other outcomes.
  • Increasing protein intake in an oral feed was tested in four trials. There was no evidence for an effect on mortality (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.37). Protein supplementation may have reduced the number of long term medical complications.
  • Two trials, testing intravenous vitamin B1 and other water soluble vitamins, or 1-alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol (an active form of vitamin D) respectively, produced no evidence of effect for either supplement.
  • One trial, evaluating dietetic assistants to help with feeding, showed a trend for a reduction in mortality (RR 0.57, 99% CI 0.29 to 1.11).

 Conclusion -

  • Some evidence exists for the effectiveness of oral protein and energy feeds, but overall the evidence for the effectiveness of nutritional supplementation remains weak.
  • Adequately sized trials are required which overcome the methodological defects of the reviewed studies.
  • In particular, the role of dietetic assistants requires further evaluation.

Links:
Abstract
Full article (PDF, 740 KB)

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special article:

Source - American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 73, No. 3, 505-510, March 2001

Title - Lessons for search strategies from a systematic review, in The Cochrane Library, of nutritional supplementation trials in patients after hip fracture.

Authors - Avenell, Alison;  Handoll, Helen HG, Grant AM

 

Abstract -

  Background - A key aim when conducting systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to include all of the evidence, if possible. Serious bias may result if trials are missed through inadequate search strategies.

 Objective - The objective was to evaluate the search plan for identifying RCTs in nutrition as part of a systematic review, in The Cochrane Library, of nutritional supplementation trials in patients after hip fracture.

 Design - We identified potential studies by searching the electronic databases BIOSIS, CABNAR, CINAHL, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, and MEDLINE; reference lists in trial reports; and other relevant articles. We also contacted investigators and other experts for information and searched 4 nutrition journals by hand.

 Results - We identified 15 RCTs that met the predefined inclusion criteria. The search plan identified 8 trials each in EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, and MEDLINE and 7 in BIOSIS and CABNAR. BIOSIS was the only electronic database source of 2 trials. Eleven trials were identified by searching electronic databases and 2 unpublished trials were identified via experts in the field. We found one trial, published only as a conference abstract, by searching nutrition journals by hand. After publication of the protocol for the review in The Cochrane Library, we were informed of another unpublished trial.

  Conclusions - We found that a limited search plan based on only MEDLINE or one of the other commonly available databases would have failed to locate nearly one-half of the studies. To protect against bias, the search plan for a systematic review of nutritional interventions should be comprehensive.

Links:
Abstract
Full article (PDF, 59 KB)

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research:

Source - Age and Ageing 2006 35(2):148-153; doi:10.1093/ageing/afj011

Title - Using dietetic assistants to improve the outcome of hip fracture: a randomised controlled trial of nutritional support in an acute trauma ward.

Authors - Duncan DG,  Beck SJ,  Hood K and Johansen A

Abstract -

 Objective - to examine how improved attention to nutritional status and dietary intake, achieved through the employment of dietetic assistants (DAs), will affect postoperative clinical outcome among elderly women with hip fracture.

 Design - open prospective randomised controlled trial, comparing conventional nursing care with the additional nutritional support provided by DA.

 Setting - thirty-eight bedded acute trauma ward in a teaching hospital.

 Participants - all but 11 of 344 consecutive admissions with acute nonpathological hip fracture were approached. Three hundred and eighteen (93%) agreed to inclusion. Sixteen were ineligible as they were immediately transferred to another acute ward, were managed conservatively or died preoperatively.

 Primary outcome measure - postoperative mortality in the acute trauma unit.

 Secondary outcome measures - postoperative mortality at 4 months after fracture, length of stay, energy intake and nutritional status.

 Results -  DA-supported participants were less likely to die in the acute ward (4.1 versus 10.1%, P = 0.048). This effect was still apparent at 4 month follow-up (13.1 versus 22.9%, P = 0.036). DA-supported subjects had significantly better mean daily energy intake (1,105 kcal versus 756 kcal/24 h, 95% CI 259–440 kcal/24 h, P<0.001), significantly smaller reduction in mid-arm circumference during their inpatient stay (0.39 cm, P = 0.002) and nonsignificantly favourable results for other anthropometric and laboratory measurements.

 Conclusion - Dietetic or nutrition assistants are being introduced in units across the UK. This, the largest ever study of nutritional support after hip fracture, shows that their employment significantly reduced patients’ risk of dying in the acute trauma unit; an effect that persisted at 4 month follow-up.

Links:

Abstract
Full article
(PDF 108 KB)

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Lack of time prevents me from "cutting and pasting" abstracts from and links to all 21 randomised controlled trials included in the Cochrane review, yet I don't want to write a biased post and present only one article (resource #3) with promising results.  Also, as the Cochrane reviewers noted:

"The quality of trial methodology, as reported, was disappointing. Many of the trials failed to report trial methodology in sufficient detail to give top scores on individual items. The impression that the scores for these studies more reflect the quality of reporting rather than trial methodology was strengthened by the changed, generally increased, scores of some items of eight studies upon gaining additional information from the trialists (Brown 1992; Bruce 2003; Day 1988; Espaulella 2000; Hankins 1996; Hartgrink 1998; Houwing 2003; Sullivan 1998)" (page 10).

So for now, I've added the review to my library and as time permits, will look at more of the individual studies, particularly those with high scores for methodology.

Tuesday
Oct062009

Nutrition in Bone Fracture Prevention & Healing: Part 1

Calcaneus Fracture X-ray (Source: Wikimedia Commons, uploaded by Jojo)

Today I'm beginning a series of posts on the role of nutrition in preventing and recovering from bone fracture. I'll be focusing on the evidence-based literature and the best practice recommendations we can draw from it.

This post summarizes three recent reviews (meta-analyses) on vitamin D and fracture/fall prevention. It also includes a rapid response to the third review article. You may want to read the rapid response first (see end of post) to help your critical appraisal of the three review articles.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review #1:

Source - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 3, 2009.

Title - Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures associated with involutional and post-menopausal osteoporosis.

Authors - Avenell, Alison;  Gillespie, William J;  Gillespie, Lesley D;  O'Connell, Dianne

Abstract -

  Objectives -To determine the effects of vitamin D or related compounds, with or without calcium, for preventing fractures in older people.

  Search strategy -  We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( 2007, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles. Most recent search: October 2007.

  Selection criteria - Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing vitamin D or related compounds, alone or with calcium, against placebo, no intervention, or calcium alone, reporting fracture outcomes in older people.

  Data collection and analysis - Two authors independently assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Data were pooled, where admissible, using the fixed-effect model, or random-effects model if heterogeneity between studies appeared high.

  Main results
-

  Forty-five trials were included.

  Vitamin D alone appears unlikely to be effective in preventing hip fracture (nine trials, 24,749 participants, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.33), vertebral fracture (five trials, 9138 participants, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.92) or any new fracture (10 trials, 25,016 participants, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09).

  Vitamin D with calcium reduces hip fractures (eight trials, 46,658 participants, RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96). Although subgroup analysis by residential status showed a significant reduction in hip fractures in people in institutional care, the difference between this and the community-dwelling subgroup was not significant (P = 0.15).

  Overall hypercalcaemia is significantly more common in people receiving vitamin D or an analogue, with or without calcium (18 trials, 11,346 participants, RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.47); this is especially true of calcitriol (four trials, 988 participants, RR 4.41, 95% CI 2.14 to 9.09). There is a modest increase in gastrointestinal symptoms (11 trials, 47,042 participants, RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, P = 0.04) and a small but significant increase in renal disease (11 trials, 46,537 participants, RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33).

  Authors' conclusions -

  • Frail older people confined to institutions may sustain fewer hip fractures if given vitamin D with calcium.
  • Vitamin D alone is unlikely to prevent fracture.
  • Overall there is a small but significant increase in gastrointestinal symptoms and renal disease associated with vitamin D or its analogues.
  • Calcitriol is associated with an increased incidence of hypercalcaemia.

Links:
Abstract & plain language summary

Full article
(PDF, 1.17 MB)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review #2:

Source - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 3, 2009

Title - Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community.

Authors - Gillespie, Lesley D;  Robertson, M Clare;  Gillespie, William J;  Lamb, Sarah E;  Gates, Simon;  Cumming, Robert G;  Rowe, Brian H

Abstract -

  Objectives - To assess the effects of interventions to reduce the incidence of falls in older people living in the community.

  Search strategy - We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL ( 2008, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Current Controlled Trials (all to May 2008).

  Selection criteria - Randomised trials of interventions to reduce falls in community-dwelling older people. Primary outcomes were rate of falls and risk of falling.

  Data collection and analysis - Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled where appropriate.

  Main results

  We included 111 trials (55,303 participants).

  Multiple-component group exercise reduced rate of falls and risk of falling (rate ratio (RaR) 0.78, 95%CI 0.71 to 0.86; risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95%CI 0.72 to 0.97), as did Tai Chi (RaR 0.63, 95%CI 0.52 to 0.78; RR 0.65, 95%CI 0.51 to 0.82), and individually prescribed multiple-component home-based exercise (RaR 0.66, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.82; RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.61 to 0.97).

  Assessment and multifactorial intervention reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.75, 95%CI 0.65 to 0.86), but not risk of falling.

  Overall, vitamin D did not reduce falls (RaR 0.95, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.14; RR 0.96, 95%CI 0.92 to 1.01), but may do so in people with lower vitamin D levels. [Bolding added for emphasis.]

  Overall, home safety interventions did not reduce falls (RaR 0.90, 95%CI 0.79 to 1.03; RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.00), but were effective in people with severe visual impairment, and in others at higher risk of falling. An anti-slip shoe device reduced rate of falls in icy conditions (RaR 0.42, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.78).

  Gradual withdrawal of psychotropic medication reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.73), but not risk of falling. A prescribing modification programme for primary care physicians significantly reduced risk of falling (RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.41 to 0.91).

  Pacemakers reduced rate of falls in people with carotid sinus hypersensitivity (RaR 0.42, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.75). First eye cataract surgery reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.66, 95%CI 0.45 to 0.95).

  There is some evidence that falls prevention strategies can be cost saving.

  Authors' conclusions -

  • Exercise interventions reduce risk and rate of falls.
  • Research is needed to confirm the contexts in which multifactorial assessment and intervention, home safety interventions, vitamin D supplementation, and other interventions are effective.

Links
Abstract & plain language summary
Full article
(PDF, 2.54 MB)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review #3:

Source - BMJ 2009;339:b3692, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3692 (Published 1 October 2009)

Title - Fall prevention with supplemental and active forms of vitamin D: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Authors -  Bischoff-Ferrari, HA; Dawson-Hughes, B; Staehelin, HB;  Orav, JE; Stuck, AE; Theiler, R; Wong, J B; Egli, A; Kiel, DP; Henschkowski, J.

Abstract -

 Objective - To test the efficacy of supplemental vitamin D and active forms of vitamin D with or without calcium in preventing falls among older individuals.

 Data sources - We searched Medline, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, BIOSIS, and Embase up to August 2008 for relevant articles. Further studies were identified by consulting clinical experts, bibliographies, and abstracts. We contacted authors for additional data when necessary.

 Review methods - Only double blind randomised controlled trials of older individuals (mean age 65 years or older) receiving a defined oral dose of supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)) or an active form of vitamin D (1{alpha}-hydroxyvitamin D3 (1{alpha}-hydroxycalciferol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol)) and with sufficiently specified fall assessment were considered for inclusion.

 Results - Eight randomised controlled trials (n=2426) of supplemental vitamin D met our inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity among trials was observed for dose of vitamin D (700-1000 IU/day v 200-600 IU/day; P=0.02) and achieved 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 concentration (25(OH)D concentration: <60 nmol/l v ≥60 nmol/l; P=0.005). High dose supplemental vitamin D reduced fall risk by 19% (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92; n=1921 from seven trials), whereas achieved serum 25(OH)D concentrations of 60 nmol/l or more resulted in a 23% fall reduction (pooled RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90). Falls were not notably reduced by low dose supplemental vitamin D (pooled RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.35; n=505 from two trials) or by achieved serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations of less than 60 nmol/l (pooled RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.84). Two randomised controlled trials (n=624) of active forms of vitamin D met our inclusion criteria. Active forms of vitamin D reduced fall risk by 22% (pooled RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94).

 Conclusions - Supplemental vitamin D in a dose of 700-1000 IU a day reduced the risk of falling among older individuals by 19% and to a similar degree as active forms of vitamin D. Doses of supplemental vitamin D of less than 700 IU or serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations of less than 60 nmol/l may not reduce the risk of falling among older individuals.

Links:
Abstract
and data supplement (trials included in meta-analysis).
Full article (PDF).
Rapid response to this article: Time for a moratorium on meta-analyses of vitamin D?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday
Jun032008

A National License to the Cochrane Library


booksbysvenwerk.jpg

Image credit: Books by svenwerk

 

This afternoon while I was using OVID to search for recent articles on "nutrition AND stroke",  I  retrieved several interesting articles on vitamin supplementation and cognitive function recently published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews  (CDSR).  Through my workplace, I have access to many high-quality information resources, including the Cochrane Library.  But I'm in the fortunate minority.  Recently I received an email asking me to encourage people to sign a petition supporting a National License to The Cochrane Library so all Canadians have free access.  Here is the background information and link to the petition.

When you have a question about a medical treatment do you know where to go for reliable, non-promotional information? The Cochrane Collaboration is a not-for-profit international organization that produces summaries of such information. Over 3000 Cochrane reviews about the effects of health care treatments are published in the online Cochrane Library. These reviews are the collaborative effort of thousands of researchers worldwide who believe patients, health professionals and health managers should have access to the summaries of best quality research available.
 
Research abstracts and short plain language summaries of Cochrane reviews are available to everyone for free. However, summaries of results may omit details such as the actual patient group studied, the types of treatment used and the specifics of side effects.
 
Unfortunately in Canada, only citizens of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia have access to the full Cochrane Library. Many other countries such as Australia, England, Finland, India, New Zealand, Spain and Sweden have purchased a license to The Cochrane Library so that all their citizens have complete free access.
 
The Canadian Cochrane Centre (www.ccnc.cochrane.org) is lobbying federal and provincial governments to support national access to The Cochrane Library.  If you support this initiative or would like more information, please visit our e-petition at http://nlccl.epetitions.net. Let's give all of Canada access at one click! 
Tuesday
Nov202007

Critical Care Nutrition

Until earlier today, I didn't know about this valuable site -- it's Canadian, too -- for critical care dietitians and physicians. I discovered Critical Care Nutrition (CCN) by responding to a request to complete a survey.  I don't have a good excuse for my ignorance other than, from habit, I've always turned to A.S.P.E.N., and more recently, ESPEN for nutrition support practice guidelines.

Now that I've found CCN, I'll be adding the link to my Connotea library and sharing it here, with a brief introduction and description to guide your exploration of this site.

CCN's team consists of physicians and dietitians "dedicated to the improvement in nutrition therapies in intensive care units across the world." The site's resources include downloadable, adaptable:

Another feature is a discussion forum, although its activity seems to be quite low at present.

CCN definitely is a site worth exploring if you are a dietitian looking after critically-ill patients.

Thursday
Aug022007

Open Medicine Journal & Blog

Hat-tip and a huge thank you to Gillian for introducing me to the Open Medicine (OM) Journal and Blog.

The blog writer and associate editor of the journal is Dean Giustini, a medical librarian at the University of British Columbia.

Here is an excerpt from one of Dean's introductory blog posts, which gives me several reasons to keep reading today and revisit the blog regularly:

So, why visit OM blog? What are the benefits? First, blogs play a key role in the evolution of the web; they bring people together to share knowledge and to help them learn about new information technologies. We are, after all, in the information age. Furthermore, blogs are increasingly used to support continuing medical education, and viewed as an enhancement to clinical practice and rapid research dissemination. I hope that the OM blog will facilitate open discussion and collaboration, and function as a completely open repository of useful clinical cases and websites.

As a medical librarian, I will also share my thoughts about locating reliable medical information on the Web. In contrast to the original research published in Open Medicine, the blog will highlight interesting or emerging ideas from the blogosphere that are not covered elsewhere - thereby filling an important information gap. Topics I will cover include perspectives on information technologies, health care systems, research funding, drug releases and alerts, health legislation and government policies.

Who will find this blog useful? Physicians, medical students, residents and other health professionals; information professionals such as clinical/ medical librarians and informationists; health consumers and patients who need information about emerging diseases (e.g. SARS), global health issues and important research published elsewhere. (Link)

Open access to scholarly information is a principle I strongly believe in. I've talked about my reasons for blogging in previous posts (#1, #2, #3), but one of them is the desire to freely share new nutrition practice discoveries as well as classic resources because it benefits everyone -- practitioners and the patient/clients we serve.

You can read more about the concept of open access here and more about the Open Access medical journal here.