ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
Nutritional interventions in cancer management: a comprehensive scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malnutrition and treatment-related catabolism undermine outcomes in oncology. This study aimed to characterize nutritional modalities, outcomes, and contextual effectiveness in cancer management. Methods: Following a predefined scope, a comprehensive search was conducted across three academic databases to identify relevant literature. Eligible study designs for inclusion were randomized controlled trials, pilot/feasibility studies, and matched cohort studies in adults with cancer that reported patient/clinical outcomes. Data were charted on population, intervention components, comparators, outcomes, feasibility, and further synthesized narratively. Results: Fifteen studies conducted in countries such as Canada, Japan, Mexico, Spain, and India were included. The interventions were clustered as follows: (i) dietitian-led counselling with quantified energy/protein targets; (ii) oral nutrition supplements such as whey protein, ω-3/EPA-enriched formulas, and adapted foods; (iii) dietary patterns (modified Atkins); and (iv) multimodal prehabilitation including nutrition plus exercise/psychosocial, and sometimes anti-inflammatory medication. During chemotherapy, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)-enriched oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) improved appetite, intake, and treatment tolerability, whereas survival remained unchanged. Cachexia programs were feasible and safe, but adherence to supplements lagged behind exercise and medication. Culturally appropriate foods were also found to enhance acceptability and quality of life. Conclusions: Nutritional therapy is a feasible and clinically meaningful component of cancer care. Impact varied by context and fidelity; however, harmonized outcomes, adherence optimization, and cost-effectiveness data are needed to inform commissioning, scale-up, and evaluation strategies.
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.