SynthesisPeerJ2026
Effect of polyunsaturated fatty acids supplementation on nutritional status in patients with pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with pancreatic cancer frequently experience malnutrition that is often unresponsive to conventional nutritional interventions. Objective: To evaluate the impact of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), specifically eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), supplementation on body weight (BW), lean body mass (LBM), body mass index (BMI), serum albumin (ALB), and serum prealbumin (PA) in this population. This systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023402888). Methods: Reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest from inception to 31 January 2026. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 1.0). Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADEpro GDT. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included and analyzed. Risk of bias was low in two studies, unclear in six, and high in one. The meta-analysis indicated that n-3 PUFAs may produce modest weight gain (SMD 1.41, 95% CI [0.36-2.46]; Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that n-3 PUFAs may produce modest weight gain, but evidence is insufficient to support meaningful improvement in overall nutritional status. Due to low certainty, substantial heterogeneity, and small sample sizes, recommendations remain individualized rather than routine. Well-designed, large-scale trials are needed to clarify which patients may benefit from this intervention.
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.