Journal of Nutrition EB Program 2010 Early Registration

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Heyland, D. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Heyland, D. K.
(Journal of Nutrition. 2001;131:2591S-2595S.)
© 2001 The American Society for Nutritional Sciences


Supplement

In Search of the Magic Nutraceutical: Problems with Current Approaches1

Daren K. Heyland

Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Over the last few decades, substrates with immune-modulating properties have been identified in all groups of micro- and macronutrients. Numerous experimental studies have focused on evaluating these substances, either alone or in combination. After hundreds of experiments, no clear, consistent signal exists that any of these agents result in significant treatment benefits in critically ill patients. The current approach to establishing the efficacy of nutritional interventions suffers from several limitations. First, the majority of studies focus on surrogate or substitute end points rather than clinically important end points. Second, the majority of clinical studies are small, and as such are underpowered to detect a significant treatment effect on clinically important end points. Third, the methodological quality of individual randomized trials varies. Methodological limitations, prevalent in nutrition studies, limit the strength of clinical inference that can be made from study results. High quality studies have been shown to differ significantly from low quality studies in their estimation of treatment effect. Fourth, the generalizability of single-site studies is limited. Finally, studies sponsored solely by industry are considered to be less believable than studies conducted under the auspices of peer-review agencies. Future evaluations must be done in the context of large, multicenter, well-designed, randomized trials focusing on clinically important end points that are sponsored from a variety of sources (including peer-reviewed agencies). Although such trials are costly, they are feasible and are much more likely to be believable and generalizable than the current approach.


KEY WORDS: • immunonutrition randomized clinical trials




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JPEN J Parenter Enteral NutrHome page
D. K. Heyland, J. W. Drover, R. Dhaliwal, and J. Greenwood
Optimizing the Benefits and Minimizing the Risks of Enteral Nutrition in the Critically Ill: Role of Small Bowel Feeding
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, November 1, 2002; 26(6_suppl): S51 - S57.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
C. Duggan, J. Gannon, and W A. Walker
Protective nutrients and functional foods for the gastrointestinal tract
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2002; 75(5): 789 - 808.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Copyright © 2001 by American Society for Nutrition