Johansen 2004.
Methods | Randomised clinical trial (stratified for age), Denmark | |
Participants | 212 hospitalised adults, at nutritional risk due to NRS‐2012
Male:Female = 102:110 Mean age = 62.2 years |
|
Interventions | Experimental group: A specialised nutritional team (nurse and dietitian) attended the participants and staff for motivation, detailed a nutritional plan, assured delivery of prescribed food and gave advice on enteral or parenteral nutrition when appropriate.(n = 108) Control group: Standard regimen used in the department(n = 104) |
|
Outcomes | All‐cause mortality, complications, designated length of hospital stay, quality of life | |
Study dates | August 1st 2001 to March 1st 2002 | |
Notes | We contacted the authors on 13th December 2012 by email: nielsjohansen@dadlnet.dk. We received no reply. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | The sequence was generated by a random‐numbers system. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Sequentially‐numbered sealed opaque envelopes |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | The nurses and participants were not blinded. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Even though the investigator assessing the outcome was blinded, the nurses who reported the outcomes were not. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | There were above 5% dropouts, and the trial did not use proper intention‐to‐treat analysis. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Both all‐cause mortality and serious adverse events were reported. |
For‐profit bias | Low risk | The trial was not funded by any company that had an interest in the outcome. |
Other bias | Low risk | The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias. |