ReviewInternational journal of pediatrics2026
The Double Burden: Understanding the Impact of Malnutrition on Childhood Cancer Outcomes in Resource-Limited Settings.
Review in International journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Double Burden: Understanding the Impact of Malnutrition on Childhood Cancer Outcomes in Resource-Limited Settings.International journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Childhood cancer disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where over 80% of cases occur, and malnutrition affects approximately 70% of pediatric oncology patients, substantially compromising treatment tolerance, immune function, and survival. This review integrates current evidence on the impact of malnutrition in LMICs, evaluates assessment methodologies and interventions, and identifies knowledge gaps that hinder optimal nutritional care. The A-B-C-D (anthropometric, biochemical, clinical, and dietary assessments) framework provides a systematic assessment, with mid-upper arm circumference and handgrip dynamometry offering practical evaluation in resource-limited settings. Prealbumin is the most sensitive early biochemical marker (54%-87% sensitivity vs. 7.4%-45.8% for albumin), and nutritional screening tools like SCAN demonstrate high validity for risk identification (> 80% sensitivity and specificity). Interventions such as ready-to-use therapeutic foods improved weight gain (77.8% vs. 64.2%) and reduced severe infections (10.6% vs. 31%) in trials. We emphasize a multidisciplinary approach and research priorities centered on standardized assessments, long-term effects of malnutrition, and culturally appropriate nutritional programs for LMICs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.