Systematic Literature Review of Randomized Control Trials Assessing the Effectiveness of Nutrition Interventions in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

AbstractObjectiveThe identification of determinants of dietary intake is an important prerequisite for the development of interventions to improve diet. The present systematic literature review aimed to compile the current knowledge on individual functional determinants of dietary intake in community-dwelling older adults.DesignA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were included when focusing on dietary intake as an outcome and on chemosensory, oral, cognitive or physical function as a determinant.SettingCommunity.SubjectsOlder adults at least 65 years old without acute or specific chronic diseases.ResultsFrom initially 14 585 potentially relevant papers, thirty-six were included. For chemosensory, cognitive and physical function only a few papers were found, which reported inconsistent results regarding the relationship to dietary intake. In contrast, oral function was extensively studied (n31). Different surrogates of oral function like dental status, number of teeth, bite force or chewing problems were associated with food as well as nutrient intakes including fibre. As all except six studies had a cross-sectional design, no causal relationships could be derived.ConclusionsAmong functional determinants of dietary intake oral factors are well documented in older adults, whereas the role of other functional determinants remains unclear and needs further systematic research.

Download Full-text

Tai Chi Chuan can improve balance and reduce fear of falling in community dwelling older adults: a randomized control trial

Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation ◽

10.12965/jer.1836488.244 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 14 (6) ◽

pp. 1024-1031 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Lida Hosseini ◽

Elham Kargozar ◽

Farshad Sharifi ◽

Reza Negarandeh ◽

Amir-Hossein Memari ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Randomized Control Trial ◽

Tai Chi ◽

Fear Of Falling ◽

Community Dwelling ◽

Tai Chi Chuan ◽

Randomized Control ◽

Community Dwelling Older Adults

Download Full-text

Are Prophylactic Systemic Antibiotics Necessary with Nasal Packing? A Systematic Review

American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy ◽

10.2500/ajra.2017.31.4454 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 31 (4) ◽

pp. 240-247 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Jessica L. Lange ◽

Erin H. Peeden ◽

Scott P. Stringer

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Systematic Literature Review ◽

Toxic Shock Syndrome ◽

Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽

Nasal Packing ◽

Randomized Control Trials ◽

Toxic Shock ◽

Randomized Control ◽

Systemic Antibiotics

Background The use of prophylactic systemic antibiotics with nasal packing has been a controversial topic. There are few evidence-based studies to determine the need for prophylactic systemic antibiotics. We performed a systematic literature review to determine the role of prophylactic systemic antibiotics with nasal packing in the prevention of toxic shock syndrome and local nasal infections. Objective The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic literature review to determine the role of prophylactic systemic antibiotics with nasal packing in the prevention of toxic shock syndrome and local nasal infections. Methods A search for studies that reviewed the efficacy of prophylactic systemic antibiotics in the prevention of toxic shock or nasal infections and/or sinusitis for patients with nasal packing for epistaxis and postoperative septoplasties was performed. This was conducted in a number of medical literature data bases by following the methods of the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only English publications and human studies that were randomized control trials, quasi-randomized control trials, controlled clinical trials, retrospective studies, and case series were included. Results Six studies, with a total of 990 patients, met the inclusion criteria for the review and were included. Primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of nasal or sinus infections in patients who underwent nasal packing for epistaxis or septoplasty. There were no reports of toxic shock syndrome in any patients, and there was no statistical difference in purulent drainage in patients who had septoplasty (9.9 versus 11.2%) treated with or without antibiotics. Conclusion There is a paucity of literature that reviewed the need for prophylactic systemic antibiotics with nasal packing. The available literature does not show a significant benefit to the use of antibiotics with nasal packing, but the studies were underpowered to detect such a difference. One must consider the associated risks of prophylactic antibiotics to the patient as well when deciding to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics.

Download Full-text