Skip to main content
. 2017 May 19;2017(5):CD011598. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011598.pub2

Breedveld‐Peters.

Methods Randomised clinical trial, the Netherlands
Participants 152 hospitalised adults admitted for hip fracture surgery and aged > 55 years, at nutritional risk due to being frail elderly
Male:Female = 44:108
Mean age = 78.5 years
 Exclusion criteria: Pathological or periprosthetic fracture; a disease of bone metabolism (e.g. M Paget, M Kahler, hyperparathyroidism); an estimated life expectancy < 1 year due to underlying disease; if they used an ONS before hospital admission; if they were unable to speak Dutch, lived outside the region or had been bedridden before their hip fracture, had dementia or were cognitively impaired, defined as a score of < 7 on the Abbreviated Mental Test, as assessed before inclusion
Interventions Experimental group: frequent dietetic counselling and multinutrient ONSs until 3 months after hip fracture surgery (n = 73)
Control group: standard dietetic counselling and diet (n = 79)
Outcomes Cost, cost effectiveness, mortality, weight, quality of life
Study dates  
Notes The trial had both an inpatient and an outpatient phase. We contacted the authors on 16th December 2015 by email: c.wyers@maastrichtuniversity.nl. We received no reply.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer‐generated random‐number sequence list
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk The allocation was described as being concealed, but it was unclear how it was concealed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk More than 5% dropouts, and the trial did not allow proper intention‐to‐treat methodology.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk The trial did not report length of stay or rate of complications, which were stated in the protocol.
For‐profit bias High risk The oral nutritional supplements were provided by at nutrition company (Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition).
Other bias Low risk The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias.