Study	Reason for exclusion
ACTRN12613000518763	Not a RCT. This is a prospective observational study of usual nutritional management in malnourished adults in rural Australia.
Ahnfeldt‐Mollerup 2015	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: no dietary counselling.
Aleman‐Mateo 2014	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: no dietary counselling.
Amlogu 2016	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: this is a public health intervention, not a health care intervention.
Antila 1993	The included participants are well‐nourished and advice is given to maintain normal nutritional status.
Apovian 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: the intervention is readymade home delivered meals and no dietary counselling component
Arija 2012	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: no dietary counselling.
Arnarson 2013	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: no dietary counselling.
Arutiunov 2009	Not a RCT: this was an observational study and therefore did not meet the inclusion criteria of randomised controlled trial design.
Bachmann 1998	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Badia 2015	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: multifactorial intervention.
Baradzina 2013	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: multifactorial intervention.
Bauer 1994	Not disease‐related malnutrition and not adults, participants are adolescent weight lifters.
Beange 1995	Not a randomised controlled trial, no control group, the 88 participants were "chosen" from 550 residents.
Beck 2008	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: the intervention was nutrition plus exercise compared with a control group receiving neither.
Beck 2016	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, the intervention is multidisciplinary and therefore not possible to assess the contribution of the dietetic component alone.
Beddhu 2015	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is an observational study.
Beelen 2017a	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: the intervention is provision of protein‐enriched foods with no dietary counselling
Beelen 2017b	Not a RCT: this is a pilot feasibility study of incorporation of protein‐enriched foods into the diet
Bello 2019	The comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is not focused on managing malnutrition but seems to have a health promotion focus and therefore seems more consistent with a public health intervention rather than clinical nutrition.
Benzekri 2019	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria. This study compares a basket of local foods with a ready to use therapeutic food and there is no mention of dietary advice.
Bernoth 2014	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is a qualitative study.
Bhattacharjee 2015	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is a prospective observational study.
Bills 1993	Not a randomised controlled trial, a questionnaire survey of nutritional practices in a nursing home.
Bolton 1990	Not a randomised controlled trial, but a palatability study of nutritional supplements.
Bories 1994	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Botella‐Carretero 2008	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this is a 3‐arm trial which compares 2 different oral nutritional supplements with routine care.
Botella‐Carretero 2010	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of ONS versus usual care with no dietary counselling
Boulos 2016	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is a cross‐sectional study.
Bozzetti 1998	Not a randomised controlled trial, a letter with no data.
Braunschweig 2015	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: no dietary counselling.
Bugge 1997	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Bunout 1989	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this trial compares an enhanced calorie‐ and protein‐based diet plus a specialized nutritional supplement with a standard hospital diet.
Burger 1993	Not a randomised controlled trial, a 6‐month prospective follow‐up of nutritional counselling in malnourished individuals with HIV infection.
Buys 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria; the intervention is home‐delivered meals and not dietary advice.
Caccialanza 2006	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Caetano 2017	Not a randomised controlled trial. This is a 2‐group study with no indication of how participants were selected for groups
Capozzi 2012	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of nutritional intervention combined with physical activity and so not possible to determine the effect of nutritional intervention alone.
Carlos Candido 2016	Not a randomised controlled trial; This study is published in Portuguese and was translated using Google translate. It is a cross‐sectional study of diet and nutritional status in older healthy Portuguese attending a gym.
Carlsson 2005	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this is a 3‐arm trial comparing an oral nutritional supplement with an oral nutritional supplement plus nandrolone (appetite stimulant) with routine care.
Cereda 2018	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: use of immunomodulating oral nutritional supplements.
Charlton 2012	Not a randomised controlled trial: this is a retrospective analysis
Chen 2017	Not a randomised controlled trial: this is a pre‐test/post‐test study.
Chew 2021	Comparison does not the meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention includes an ONS with beta‐hydroxy‐beta‐methylbutyrate which is a novel ingredient and therefore excluded.
ChiCTR1900020807	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is enteral feeding and not dietary advice.
ChiCTR1900021167	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria.  The intervention is a nutritious formula food versus no formula food with no mention of dietary advice.  This looks more like an ONS supplementation study.
ChiCTR‐INR‐17012826	Comparison does not meet the inclusion critieria.  The intervention includes an ONS with a novel ingredient HMB.
Choi 2013	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is a cross‐sectional study.
Della Valle 2018	Not a RCT, this is a one group observational study.
DeLuis 2010	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of a standard ONS versus an n‐3 fatty acid enriched ONS with no dietary counselling
Demeny 2015	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is a questionnaire‐based survey of practice.
Deutz 2016	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria; the intervention is an oral nutritional supplement with beta‐hydroxy‐beta methylbutyrate versus placebo.
De Waele 2015	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: participants in the control group (usual care) also received intensive, personalized nutritional counselling by an oncology dietitian and this does not fit our definition of 'no supplementation, usual diet'.
Ding 2016	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria; the intervention is a comprehensive intervention including dietary advice, symptom management and psychological support.
Dizon 2016	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: the intervention was dietary counselling plus high‐protein meal boxes versus low‐energy and low‐protein meal boxes.
Dorner 2013	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: dietary counselling is combined with exercise, therefore not possible to examine the effects of dietary care alone.
DRKS00016661	Comparison does not meet the inclusion critieria.  From the trial report this seems to be an ONS versus placebo study.
Duncan 2006	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, the intervention is help with eating from a dietetic assistant compared with routine care.
Dupuis 2017	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: the intervention is about training protocols for nutritional management rather than specifically dietary advice.
Efthimiou 1988	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this is a 3‐arm trial which compares an oral nutritional supplement with routine care. The 3rd group are individuals that are normally nourished and receiving usual diet.
Ekramzadeh 2015	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  This is a study of dietary advice versus an anti‐inflammatory diet.  No routine care arm.
Elbanna 1996	Not a randomised controlled trial, comparison of preoperative nutritional support in 2 groups, but the control group are purposively recruited before the intervention group.
Elkort 1981	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, comparison of an oral nutritional supplement with routine care, both groups are given encouragement to eat a balanced diet which was considered not to constitute dietary advice.
Elmstaahl 1987	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this study has 3 arms comparing 3 different oral nutritional supplements.
Eneroth 1997	Not a randomised controlled trial and comparison does not meet inclusion criteria. This study compares supplementary nutrition, which can consist of an oral nutritional supplement, enteral or parenteral feeding with hospital food.
Engel 1995	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Evans 2013	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of supplementation with FutureLife porridge versus usual care with no dietary counselling
Faber 2015	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: use of immunomodulating oral nutritional supplement which is outside the scope of this review.
Faccio 2021	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The ONS includes novel ingredients, leucine and zinc IMMAX for nutritional recovery.
Fietkau 2013	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of a standard ONS with a disease‐specific ONS with no dietary counselling
Flynn 1987	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this study compares individualised nutritional counselling to an oral nutritional supplement with standard nutritional.
Forli 2006	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Franzoni 1996	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Gil Gregorio 2003	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: oral nutritional supplements with no dietary advice.
Glimelius 1992	Not a randomised controlled trial, an historical control group was used.
Gomez Sanchez 2010	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of an immune‐enhancing ONS versus usual care with no dietary counselling
Gurgun 2013	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: Participants received an exercise intervention in addition to dietary interventions (dietary advice +ONS) versus exercise versus routine care and so it is not possible to isolate the effects of dietary counselling.
Hamirudin 2017	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is a one group prospective study with no comparison group.
Hammersley 2015	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is an observational study with a multi‐component intervention.
Hansra 2017	The participants do not have illness‐related malnutrition. The intervention is dietary counseling to manage weight gain.
Hashmi 2016	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: no dietary counselling
Hatsu 2014	Not a randomised controlled trial and comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: no dietary counselling.
Hayashi 2014	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is a matched case‐controlled study. Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: no dietary counselling.
Heberer 1984	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of parenteral nutrition.
Henquin 1989	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Hickson 2004	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, the intervention is help with eating from a dietetic assistant compared with routine care.
Hogan 1997	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Holder 2003	Not a randomised controlled trial, a review article.
Huisman 2012	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of preventative nutritional support where participants were monitored and received the intervention if weight loss >5% developed. Not comparable with other studies in the review were intervention is initiated at the start of the study.
Hulsewe 1997	Not a randomised controlled trial, a discussion of perioperative nutritional interventions.
Huppertz 2020	The comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The comparison in this trial will be between a pre‐thickened ONS and an ONS thickened using conventional additives.
Idilman 2009	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this is a retrospective review of nutrition intervention and outcomes in individuals with alcoholic liver disease.
Ingadottir 2019	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, the intervention is snacks which were provided versus ONS with no mention of dietary advice.
Ireton 1995	Not a randomised controlled trial, an observational study.
ISRCTN11132850	Other: It looks like this trial was completed and is relevant to comparison 3 but we can’t find evidence of publication. Excluded because of lack of information.
ISRCTN56882109	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria. This is a trial of a specialised ONS Renilon 7.5 vs standard treatment in people with end stage renal disease
Jacka 2017	Participants are not malnourished or at risk of malnutrition.
Jamieson 1997	Not a randomised controlled trial, a retrospective audit.
Jancey 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria; the intervention group receive dietary counselling plus physical activity advice.
Jang 2018	Comparison does not meet the inclusion critieria, the intervention is multicomponent (including nutritional supplementation) with no dietary advice.
Jie 2009	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this study compares enteral and parenteral feeding.
Johnson 1993	Not a randomised controlled trial and comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this is a comparison of oral nutritional supplements with no nutritional supplement. Both groups follow their usual diet, therefore there is no counselling component.
Kang 2016	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria. Although the abstract mentions individualised counselling, the authors have confirmed that they received enteral and parenteral nutrition.
Karavetian 2016	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria. This is a study of individualised education versus usual care, but the education relates to the management of hypophosphataemia.
Keller 1995	Not a randomised controlled trial, a retrospective survey of outcomes in malnourished and normally nourished participants.
Kirkil 2012	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of immune enhancing enteral and parenteral nutrition with no dietary counselling
Kiss 2014	Malnourished individuals were excluded and both the intervention and control group received nutritional support.
Knowles 1988	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, a comparison of an oral nutritional supplement with no nutritional supplement.
Kondrup 1998	Not a randomised controlled trial, a retrospective survey of outcomes in malnourished individuals.
Kong 2018	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  This is an ONS versus no ONS study and there is no dietary advice.
Krasnoff 2006	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, a comparison of nutritional counselling plus exercise compared with routine care.
Kristensen 2020	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is multidisciplinary and so it is not possible to determine whether any benefits relate to the nutritional intervention.
Kruizenga 2005	Not a randomised controlled trial, a controlled study using historical controls.
La Torre 2018	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, it is focussed on achieving a healthy lifestyle and not on improving nutritional intake in nutritionally vulnerable patients.
Lee 2013	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of ONS versus usual care with no dietary counselling
Lee 2016	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria; a comparison of oral nutritional supplements with no oral nutritional supplements.
Leedo 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria; the intervention consisted of meals and snacks but no dietary counselling.
Lehtisalo 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria; this is a multi‐component intervention consisting of a dietary component, physical activity, cognitive training and metabolic and cardiovascular management.
Lejeune 2005	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, a comparison of dietary advice to achieve weight loss in moderately overweight individuals.
Leslie 2013	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of dietary fortification versus usual care with no dietary counselling
Levine 1982	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, comparison of standard diet with parenteral nutrition.
Li 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria; the intervention is enteral nutrition
Lipschitz 1985	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Lonbro 2013	Not a randomised controlled trial: this is a retrospective data analysis
Luppino 2015	Not a randomised controlled trial. This is a two group study with a group receiving an intervention and a matched historical control group
Lynch 1983	Not a randomised controlled trial, a prospective study of an oral carbohydrate supplement.
Manders 2009	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this is a study of oral nutritional supplements compared with no nutritional supplement.
Margare 2002	This paper was identified during searching but the full manuscript has remained unavailable on the journal website for a number of years. The study was excluded at the 2018/9 update as it was judged unlikely that the paper will be identified.
Maurya 2019	This is not a RCT it is a two group observational study with no random allocation to groups.
Mazzuca 2019	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  This is an ONS versus no ONS study and there is no dietary advice.
McCarter 2018	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: the intervention is an enhanced management protocol and not specifically dietary counselling.
McCormack 2013	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of two different ONS containing beta‐alanine with no dietary counselling
McWhirter 1996	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of oral versus naso‐gastric supplementation.
Mendenhall 1993	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, comparison of a nutritional supplement with a placebo nutritional supplement.
Mendenhall 1995	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, this study compares hospital diet plus an oral nutritional supplement and a vitamin and mineral supplement with hospital diet plus a vitamin and mineral supplement plus a placebo nutritional supplement.
Monnin 1993	Not a randomised controlled trial, a report of the findings from a questionnaire on nutritional counselling in breast cancer.
Montoya 2014	Not a randomised controlled trial. Following translation, this is a quasi‐experimental study, the control arm recruited first and then the intervention group.
Morasutti 2012	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is a 2‐group study, where the control group is historic control.
Munck 1998	Not a randomised controlled trial, a review of dietary counselling.
Munk 2014	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of fortified additional hospital dishes versus usual care with no dietary counselling
Myint 2013	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of ONS versus usual care with no dietary counselling
NCT00136253	Other: This looks relevant (?comparison 1) but we can’t find evidence of it being published. There is a retrospective study of nutritional intervention by the primary investigator Sehgal AR and an RCT but of clinical barriers.  Excluded because of insufficient information.
NCT00417508	Other: This looks like a group 3 study but there is no evidence of publication either from the trial report or doing and author and title search.  Excluded because of lack of information.
NCT00769652	Other: This trial looks relevant to include in comparison 1 or 4 but there is no evidence of publication.  Excluded because of lack of information.
NCT01116947	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  All participants receive dietary counselling and the intervention is Fosrenol versus a conventional phosphate binder.
NCT01190969	The trial seems to be relevant for inclusion in comparison 2 but on Clinical Trials is listed as withdrawn because of difficulty recruiting.
NCT02681601	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is dietary advice plus an oral nutritional supplement which contains omega‐3 fatty acids.
NCT03488511	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is home‐delivered meals versus routine care and there is no dietary advice.
NCT03649698	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.   The intervention is supplementation with a protein powder, there is no dietary advice.
NCT03741283	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is multimodal and it would not be possible to determine whether any benefits were related to the nutritional components.
NCT03774953	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  This is a trial of a protein supplement versus no supplement with no dietary advice.
NCT03792711	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria.  The intervention is dietary advice versus ONS but the ONS contains a novel ingredient (β‐hydroxy‐β‐methylbutyrate) which is excluded.
NCT03807310	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  This is lifestyle counselling plus a novel ONS versus lifestyle counselling and an isocaloric ONS.
NCT03924089	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, the intervention is dietary advice versus ONS, but the ONS contains novel ingredients (probiotics) which are excluded.
NCT04027413	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is exercise plus an ONS versus exercise plus a placebo ONS with no dietary advice.
NCT04036825	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, the intervention is a liquid ONS versus a placebo ONS with no dietary advice.
NCT04109495	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is a Smartphone App which provides feedback on intake.  There is no dietary advice component.
NCT04175769	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention involves capsules containing a novel ingredient (fish oils) and there is no dietary advice.
NCT04218253	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention includes an oral nutritional supplement that contains branched chain amino acids which is judged to be a novel ingredient.
Neidich 1985	Not a randomised controlled trial, the intervention is a high‐nitrogen food supplement and the participants are mainly children.
Newmark 1981	Not a randomised controlled trial.
Neyman 1996	Not a randomised controlled trial and comparison does not meet inclusion criteria. This study compares outcomes in participants in a congregate‐site meals programme with people not participating in the programme.
Ng 2015	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: no dietary counselling.
Nijs 2006	The comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, this study compares family‐style dining versus traditional dining.
NTR6713	The personalised dietary advice is given to improve healthy eating and not to manage illness‐related malnutrition
NTR7506	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is ONS versus routine care.  There is no dietary advice.
Nyamathi 2018	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The food‐based intervention is given with a health promotion focus rather than to manage a clinical problem.
Nykanen 2014	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, this is a multi‐component intervention and therefore not possible to assess the individual contribution of the nutrition component.
Nykanen 2018	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is a local berry‐based supplement and there is no dietary advice.
Olofsson 2007	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: the intervention included many aspects of medical care in addition to a nutritional intervention that may have accounted for any reported benefits.
Ommundsen 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is geriatric assessment including nutrition and tailored management versus usual care and so it would not be possible to separate the effects of nutrition.
Openbrier 1984	Not a randomised controlled trial, this is a prospective evaluation of nutritional intervention in malnourished participants with emphysema.
Orell 2019	The routine care arm is not consistent with other studies in the review.  The intervention is an individualised nutritional intervention but the comparison arm is on‐demand nutritional counselling (requested by the managing clinician).
Otsuki 2020	The comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  Although participants received individual dietary counselling there is an escalation of intervention to enteral feeding and around 20% of participants received enteral feeding.
Ottery 1996	Not a randomised controlled trial, a description of improvements following nutritional intervention.
Ottestad 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: participants received a protein‐enriched milk drink or an isocaloric carbohydrate drink so no dietary advice component.
Palar 2015	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria. The food‐based intervention is given in the context of public health and not a healthcare context
Parrott 2006	The comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, this study compares a snack‐type supplement provided to people with Alzheimer's disease in a nursing home which is not the same as dietary advice.
Patel 1998	Not a randomised controlled trial and comparison does not meet inclusion criteria; it examines the efficacy of dietary advice to avoid weight gain.
Paulsen 2020	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is a computerised decision support system to enhance nutritional intake and not individualised dietary advice.
Pedersen 2005	Not a randomised controlled trial, this is a quasi‐experimental study of nurse‐facilitated patient involvement in care.
Penalva 2009	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a RCT of oral nutritional supplements versus "oral cooking supplements". Following translation, there is no mention of the use of dietary advice.
Pietersma 2003	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, a comparison of individual selection of 1 meal a day from the food cart compared with receiving the usual plated meal.
Planas 2005	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, comparison of 2 groups both receiving dietary advice and supplements but the target energy intake varied between the groups.
Plank 2008	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, comparison of oral nutritional supplements with no nutritional supplements.
Poulsen 2014	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: use of immunomodulating oral nutritional supplements.
PrayGod 2012	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of nutritionally‐enriched biscuits versus usual care with no dietary counselling
Rabinovitch 2006	Not a randomised controlled trial, a re‐analysis of data.
Rassmussen 2006	Not a randomised controlled trial and comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, as the intervention does not aim to increase nutritional intake.
Reinders 2018	Not a RCT.  This is a systematic review with pooled analysis.
Rizk 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria. This is a study of a trained dedicated dietitian versus hospital dietitian in managing patients with renal disease.
Rollo 2020	Participants are not malnourished, they are relatively young people on a university campus.
Roussel 2016	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, around 20% of participants in each group received enteral feeding
Rozentryt 2010	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of ONS versus usual care with no dietary counselling
Rüfenacht 2010	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria; comparison of hospital diet plus oral nutritional supplement with dietary counselling plus oral nutritional supplement as required.
Salas‐Salvado 2005	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: the comparison is unclear but appears to be dietary advice plus provision of puree diet and inclusion of a snack‐type supplement based on natural lypolysed food compared with dietary advice plus provision of a puree diet.
Sankhaanurak 2021	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  All participants received nutrition counselling and were then randomised to a simplified protein counting tool versus control.
Sartorelli 2005	Participants do not have illness‐related malnutrition. The intervention relates to promotion of healthy eating rather than management of malnutrition.
Saudny‐Unterberger 1997	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, comparison of hospital diet and a supplement or extra food with hospital diet only. No dietary counselling.
Shamoto 2020	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is a multidisciplinary comprehensive care and so not possible to isolate the effects of dietary advice.
Shan 2001	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria. The intervention is described as parenteral nutrition or no parenteral nutrition.
Simmons 2008	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of feeding assistance versus usual care with no dietary counselling. Potential for bias in participant selection because to be eligible for inclusion, the nursing home residents had to demonstrate that they were responsive to one of the feeding assistance interventions.
Simmons 2010	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of ONS versus snacks versus usual care with no dietary counselling
Skaarud 2016	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: information from the authors indicates that all patients in the intervention group received tube feeding.
Skaarud 2018	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  A high proportion of participants receive an escalation of intervention to enteral nutrition.
Smoliner 2008	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, comparison of the provision of fortified food with routine care in a nursing home which does not meet the definition of dietary advice.
Sohrabi 2016	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: comparison of an oral nutritional supplement with and without a vitamin E supplement and there is no dietary advice.
Solerte 2008	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, comparison of an amino acid mixture with a placebo.
Solomon 1978	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, comparison of a combination of pre‐operative and post‐operative diets including a hypo‐caloric, carbohydrate‐free, protein‐containing diet with normal diet.
Somanchi 2011	Not a randomised controlled trial; this is a 2‐arm non‐randomised study with the two wards "being chosen at random".
Sridar 1994	Not a randomised controlled trial, a prospective study of 12 individuals with COPD after nutritional intervention.
Stack 1996	Not a randomised controlled trial, a prospective, descriptive trial with no control group.
Stark 1990	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, all participants were children.
Stevenson 2019	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria. The dietary advice given relates to the management of renal disease rather than to improve nutritional intake.
Stewart 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a protocol for a trial of nutritional intervention combined with physical activity.
Suzuki 2019	The dietary advice given in this study is based on healthy eating rather than an intervention to increase energy, protein and nutrient intake.
Swaminathan 2010	This is a cluster intervention study but the method of assignment of clusters is not described and there is no mention of randomisation to clusters.
Swanenburg 2007	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, comparison of exercise plus an oral nutritional supplement with no exercise and no supplement.
Tandon 1984	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is enteral feeding versus standard oral diet
Tatsumi 2009	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, the intervention is "Hochuekkito" which is a herbal medicine.
Taylor 2006	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, comparison of meal frequency (5 meals versus 3 meals) on nutritional outcomes.
Trabal 2010	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria; the oral nutritional supplement used is an immuno‐nutrition supplement which is outside of the scope of this review.
Turic 1998	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, intervention involves the provision of a nutritional supplement or snacks to nursing home residents which does not meet the definition of dietary advice.
Turnock 2013	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of an immune‐enhancing ONS versus standard ONS with no dietary counselling
Unosson 1992	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, the intervention is hospital diet plus a nutritional supplement compared with hospital diet.
van Beers 2020	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is dietary counselling plus ONS versus no counselling and a placebo but the ONS contains a novel ingredients.
van Blarigan 2020	Participants and comparison don't meet the inclusion criteria. The participants are people with CRC but who have completed treatment and have stable disease.  The intervention is a healthy eating intervention.  The study is not about illness‐related malnutrition.
van den Berg 2010	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: participants in the control group (usual care) also received intensive, personalized nutritional counselling by a nurse and this does not fit our definition of 'no supplementation, usual diet'.
van den Heuvel 2017	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention consists of supplementation with eggs, there is no dietary counselliing.
van der Meij 2010	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: this is a study of an immune‐enhancing ONS versus standard ONS with no dietary counselling
van der Pols‐Vijlbrief 2017	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria; the study had a multifactorial approach in which participants could choose which problem they wanted to address, meaning that dietary counselling was not the primary intervention and also a number of participants in the intervention group did not choose dietary counselling as the main approach and thus never received any dietary counselling or advice.
Vargas 1995	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, 4 arms comparing different combination of nutritional supplements and training.
Vazquez Martinez 2015	Not a randomised trial; on translation, this seems to be an editorial.
Volkert 1996	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, the intervention is hospital diet plus a nutritional supplement compared with hospital diet.
Watson 2008	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria: the intervention consists of both dietetic and educational and psychological motivation; it would be difficult to attribute any reported benefits to nutrition alone.
Williams 1989a	Participants were mainly children with some adults; no participants over 16 years of age in control group therefore no comparison group.
Williams 1989b	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, the intervention is hospital diet plus a nutritional supplement compared with hospital diet.
Woo 1994	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, the intervention is hospital diet plus a nutritional supplement compared with hospital diet.
Wouters‐Wessling 2005	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria, comparison of a nutritional supplement with routine care.
Wright 2008	Not a randomised trial, a prospective observational study with retrospective control group examining feeding assistance to increase intake.
Wu 2020	The comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is not a dietary intervention but seems to be exercises for the oral cavity and oral hygiene in nutritionally at risk participants.
Xie 2017	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria: participants in the control group (usual care) also received intensive, personalized nutritional counselling and this does not fit our definition of 'no supplementation, usual diet'.
Yoneda 1992a	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, a report on the clinical course of individuals with asthma.
Yoneda 1992b	Comparison does not meet inclusion criteria, Japanese study that appears to be an intervention to reduce psychological stress in individuals with respiratory disease.
Yuvaraj 2016	Comparison does not include dietary advice; a comparison of an oral nutritional supplement with "kitchen feeding" implying the provision of additional food.
Zhang 2018a	Comparison does not meet the inclusion criteria.  The intervention is descripted as priphylactic enteral nutrition powder formula. There is no mention of dietary advice and no description of whether the formula is taken orally or via a tube.
Zhao 1995	Other: This reference might be incorrect.  Is there a journal ‘parenteral and enteral nutrition’.  I have checked JPEN and this paper is not there.  Nothing identified on title and author search.  Excluded because of insufficient information.
Zweers 2020	The majority (95%) of participants are not malnourished, therefore this is not illness‐related malnutrition.

HMB: beta‐hydroxy‐beta‐methylbutyrate

ONS: oral nutritional supplement