Table 3.
Outcome data for experimental studies assessing nutritional status.
| Studies | BMI/Weight Outcomes | MNA-SF Outcomes | Nutritional Status Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cassen et al. [47] | 3D moulded vs. unmoulded TMDs NS weight loss in 6 months: 15.4% vs. 100% (n = 2/13 vs. 21/21) Sig. weight loss of ≥4.5 kg 0% 19% (n = 0/13 vs. 4/21) |
||
| Espinosa-Val et al. [43] | Dysphagia vs. Non-dysphagia patients: 7 ± 2.68 (n = 211) vs. 8.2 ± 2.45 (n = 35), p = 0.014 |
% Malnourished: 53.6% (n = 113) % At risk of malnutrition: 43.1% (n = 91) % Well-nourished: 3.3% (n = 7) |
|
| Germain et al. [51] | Shaped vs. unshaped TMDs 6 weeks: NS weight change (p > 0.05) 12 weeks: Sig. ↑ weight in shaped TMDs and weight loss was seen in unshaped TMDs +3.90 ± 2.3 0 vs. −0.79 ± 4.18 kg, p < 0.05 BMI ↑ from 22.4 ± 3.93→24.5 ± 4.14 |
||
| Keller et al. [53] | 74% of participants consuming mix of shaped ready-to-use TMDs and bulk TMDs achieved weight goal after 6 months NS weight or morbidity change between intervention and control periods Trends towards ↑ weight on mixed TMDs (OR = 3.5, p = 0.16) and ↓ weight on bulk TMDs (OR = 4.3, p = 0.11) |
||
| Martín et al. [42] | Standardised vs. non-standardised TMDs BMI within normal range at both admission and 6-month follow up Changes in 6 months intervention 27.76 ± 4.42 vs. 28.52 ± 4.39, p = 0.2045 |
Changes in 6 months intervention 9.84 ± 2.05 vs. 11.31 ± 2.21, p = 0.0038 |
Changes in 6 months intervention % Malnourished: 18.75% vs. 3.13% (n = 6 vs. 1) % At risk of malnutrition: 59.38% vs. 31.25% (n = 19 vs. 10) % Well-nourished patients 21.87% vs. 65.63% (n = 7 vs. 17), p = 0.0013 |
| Ott et al. [58] | Weight change during 6 weeks traditional TMDs: 59.3 vs. 58.8 kg (−0.5 kg), p = 0.21 Weight change during 6 weeks enriched and shaped TMDs: 59.6 vs. 58.8 (+0.8 kg) kg, p = 0.007 |
Baseline MNA-SF % Malnourished: 25% ((n = 4/16) % At risk of malnutrition: 75% (n = 12/16) |
|
| Reyes—Torres et al. [37] | Weight change after 12 weeks consistency modified TMDs: 56 ± 10 vs. 60 ± 10 (+7%) kg, p < 0.001 Handgrip strength:18 ± 11 vs. 21 ± 13 kg, p = 0.004 NS Weight/BMI changes in traditional TMDs control group (p > 0.05) |
Baseline MNA % Malnourished: 50% (n = 20/40) |
|
| Welch et al. [60] | Weight change after 3 months vs. 6 months of fortified TMDs and supplements +2.8 ± 1.25 vs. +4.6 ± 2.0 lbs, p < 0.04 66.7% ↑ 0.5–5.4 kg from 3–6 month; 33.3% ↓ 0.5–2.3 kg |
||
| Zanini et al. [41] | Changes after 6 months personalised TMDs 17.88 ± 3.48 to 19.00 ± 3.32(+1.12), p < 0.001 with sig. growth trend (p < 0.007) Changes after 6 months traditional TMDs control group 20.96 ± 4.07 vs. 17.88 ± 3.48 (−3.08), p < 0.001 |
Changes after 6 months personalised TMD 8 to 10 (+2), p < 0.001 Changes after 6 months traditional TMDs control group 7 to 8 (−1), p < 0.001 |
Note. BMI—body mass index; TMD—texture-modified diet; Sig—significant; NS—no significant; ↓—low; ↑—increased. MNA-SF scores: 0–7 = malnourished; 8–11 = at risk of malnutrition; 12–14 = normal nutritional status. MNA scores: 0–16 = malnourished; 17–23.5 = at risk of malnutrition; 24–30 = well-nourished.