The best–evidence–based evidence summarized in this study can provide a reference for the formulation of HEN management plans for postoperative patients with oral cancer.
Abstract
This study aimed to establish a standardized management system for home enteral nutrition (HEN) for patients with postoperative oral cancer and provide scientific guidance for clinical professionals by systematically searching relevant literature and summarizing the best evidence.
Literature retrieval was performed systematically across Chinese and English databases following the “5S” evidence hierarchy model to identify studies addressing home nutritional management in postoperative oral cancer patients. Eligible articles underwent rigorous screening, methodological appraisal, and data synthesis to extract high-quality clinical evidence.
The final review encompassed a total of 15 articles, including 6 evidence-based guidelines, 4 systematic reviews, 1 clinical decision, 2 expert consensuses, and 2 evidence summaries. Through systematic induction and integration, a total of 29 pieces of best evidence were synthesized and categorized into five key domains: establishment of nutrition management team, nutrition screening and assessment procedures, implementation standards for HEN, health education and care strategies, and monitoring and follow-up mechanisms.
The best–evidence–based evidence summarized in this study can provide a reference for the formulation of HEN management plans for postoperative patients with oral cancer.
This study was conducted in accordance with the evidence summary reporting guidelines established by the Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing on 10 July 2025, with the registration number ES20258489.
Aim To summarize the available evidence on perioperative tube-fed enteral nutrition in esophageal cancer patients. Design This article was an evidence summary according to the evidence summary reporting standard of the Fudan University Center for Evidence-Based Nursing. Method A systematic literature search was conducted on the management of tube-fed enteral nutrition in patients with esophageal cancer. The types of literature included clinical decisions, guidelines, expert consensus, evidence summaries, and systematic evaluations. Data sources The following databases and resources were systematically searched: BMJ Best Practice, Up To Date, Guidelines International Network, National Guideline Clearing-house, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, Yi Mai Tong Guidelines Network, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, Wan Fang, CNKI, VIP, and SinoMed; and websites of relevant professional associations, including National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Cancer Society, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism website, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition website, China Nutritional Sciences Resource Platform, and Chinese Nursing Association. The search period spanned from the database setup to November 2024. Results A total of 20 articles were included, including 2 clinical decisions, 9 guidelines, 7 expert consensus, 1 evidence summary, and 1 systematic review. A total of 40 pieces of evidence were summarized from 9 aspects: team management, nutritional risk screening and assessment, nutritional support indications, enteral nutritional support routes and timing, target nutrient requirements, enteral nutritional preparations, implementation of tube-fed enteral nutrition, maintenance of tubing, monitoring of nutritional support, and evaluation of outcomes. Conclusion This article summarizes evidence on perioperative tube-fed enteral nutrition management in patients with esophageal cancer. Clinical practitioners should select and apply evidence, considering actual medical conditions and the patient’s specific condition, to scientifically administer perioperative tube-fed enteral nutritional support in patients with esophageal cancer. Systematic review registration identifier ES20246670.
Xinli Wan, Huarong Zheng, Jiayi Yang et al.· Frontiers in Nutrition· 0 citations
Abstract This systematic review aims to synthesize the best available evidence on oral health care for patients with post‑stroke dysphagia, and to provide an evidence‑based framework for clinical nursing staff to reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonia. Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched computerized decision systems, guideline websites, professional association websites, and comprehensive databases from inception to December 2025 for clinical decisions, guidelines, evidence summaries, best practices, expert consensuses, systematic reviews, and meta‑analyses. Three researchers trained in evidence‑based methodology independently evaluated literature quality, extracted data, and graded the evidence. Seventeen publications were included (10 guidelines, 3 expert consensuses, 1 clinical decision aid, and 3 evidence summaries), yielding 21 pieces of best evidence across four domains: team formation, screening and assessment, nursing interventions, and health education. Key evidence includes nurse‑led multidisciplinary collaboration, standardized oral and swallowing assessments, twice‑daily oral care with a soft‑bristled toothbrush, cautious use of chlorhexidine mouthwash, and systematic caregiver training before discharge. This systematic review provides a comprehensive, nurse‑centred framework; a multidisciplinary approach, structured interventions, and caregiver education are essential to lower aspiration risk and improve patient outcomes.
Yi Lu, Shoujian Zong, Jing Song et al.· Journal of Multidisciplinary...· 0 citations
Objective Systematically retrieve, evaluate, and synthesize the best available evidence on perioperative glycemic management in liver cancer patients to provide evidence-based guidance for clinical nursing practice. Methods Using the “6S” evidence model, we conducted a top-down search of domestic and international databases, guideline portals, and professional association websites for best clinical practices, guidelines, systematic reviews, evidence summaries, expert consensus statements, and randomized controlled trials concerning perioperative glycemic management in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. The search period spanned January 2015 to December 2025. Selected literature underwent quality assessment, evidence extraction, and synthesis. Results A total of 14 documents were included, comprising 4 guidelines, 1 systematic review, 1 evidence summary, 3 expert consensus statements, and 5 randomized controlled trials. This yielded 28 best evidence items across six domains: team-based perioperative glycemic management for liver cancer patients, preoperative assessment management, medication and nutritional management, blood glucose monitoring and targets, complication management, and health education. Conclusion This study summarizes the best available evidence for perioperative glycemic management in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, providing evidence-based guidance for healthcare professionals. Each piece of evidence should be thoroughly assessed for its appropriateness and feasibility before being translated and applied in clinical practice.
Yuxiao Li, Ming Pang, Caifang Gong et al.· Frontiers in Oncology· 0 citations
Objectives To synthesize the best evidence for whole-course nutritional management of bladder cancer (BC) and to obtain a structured summary of evidence for clinical guidance. Methods A full search was conducted in multiple websites and databases (11 electronic databases, 10 guideline websites, and 14 major professional society websites) for expert consensus, expert recommendations, guidelines, evidence summaries, randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews related to BC nutrition until December 2025, with a supplementary search in January 2026. The included studies underwent quality assessment, extraction and summary of evidence, and two-round Delphi expert consultation. A total of 17 experts were invited to participate in the first round, and 15 experts were invited in the second round. Results Sixteen studies were included: one expert recommendation, one clinical decision, three expert consensus articles, four evidence summaries, and seven guidelines. We summarized 91 evidence statements across seven dimensions: nutrition team formation and management processes, three-tier nutritional diagnosis, principles of nutrition support therapy, content of nutritional interventions, nutritional surveillance, health education, and nutritional follow-up. The expert authority coefficient (Cr) was 0.88 for both rounds of consultation, and Kendall’s coefficients of concordance were 0.250 and 0.313, respectively, indicating acceptable expert authority. Conclusion This study summarized the best evidence for whole-course nutritional management of BC across treatment methods and nutritional statuses. The findings lay an evidence-based basis for clinical practice, especially for patients with nutritional risk undergoing radical cystectomy. Systematic review registration https://nursing.fudan.edu.cn/38724/list.htm, identifier ES20258783.
Bingbing Zhang, Yuanjiao Chen, Yan Wang et al.· Frontiers in Nutrition· 0 citations
AIM
To retrieve, evaluate, and summarize the evidence related to nutritional risk screening and assessment in adult critically ill patients, providing an evidence-based decision-making reference for clinical healthcare professionals.
DESIGN
This study was an evidence summary followed by the evidence summary reporting standard of Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing.
METHOD
According to the '6S' model of evidence resources, evidence on nutritional risk screening and assessment in adult critically ill patients was retrieved, including clinical decision-making, best practices, guidelines, evidence summaries, expert consensus, and systematic evaluations.
DATA
Up to date, BMJ Best Practice, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), Embase, PubMed, WanFang Medical, China Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, and relevant professional society websites including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), GIlN, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, and Yi Maitong were searched from the establishment of these databases to Dec. 2024.
RESULTS
Eleven literature sources were included, comprising 8 guidelines, 2 expert consensuses, and 1 evidence summary. Through rigorous synthesis, 18 best practice recommendations were distilled across eight critical domains: multidisciplinary team formation, screening targets, screening timing, screening instruments, screening frequency, assessment targets, assessment core parameters, and assessment frequency.
CONCLUSION
This study summarizes the current best evidence regarding nutritional risk screening and assessment in adult critically ill patients, providing optimal evidence support for standardizing nutritional risk screening and assessment in this population. In clinical practice, it is essential to select the best evidence for localized and individualized application while continuously updating the evidence to standardize nursing practice.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE
Clinical medical staff are encouraged to use evidence-based recommendations for the screening and assessment of nutritional risks in adult critically ill patients. By implementing these best evidence practices, healthcare professionals can enhance patient care and improve clinical outcomes, ensuring that nutritional needs are effectively addressed.
IMPACT
The effective screening and assessment of nutritional risk in critically ill patients are crucial for optimizing patient outcomes. This study summarizes 18 pieces of best evidence concerning nutritional risk screening and assessment, highlighting their importance in clinical practice. Implementing these recommendations can enhance the quality of nutritional care, reduce complications, and ensure that patients receive appropriate nutritional interventions tailored to their needs. By focusing on these best practices, healthcare providers can significantly improve the management of nutrition in critically ill patients.
REPORTING METHOD
This research followed the evidence summary reporting specifications of the Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The registration number is 'ES20221368'.
Dan Luo, Taoxue Wen, Qionghui Wu et al.· Journal of Clinical Nursing· 0 citations
Cholecystectomy is one of the most common abdominal surgeries worldwide, yet postoperative nutritional management remains variable. This review synthesizes current evidence on nutritional care after cholecystectomy, with a focus on actionable insights for clinicians.
We conducted a non-systematic narrative review of English-language literature published from January 2010 through June 2026, supplemented by manual searches of guidelines. Due to the narrative design, we did not perform a formal risk-of-bias assessment or meta-analysis.
Postoperative gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., bloating, diarrhea, dyspepsia) are common, but their incidence and etiology vary widely. Early oral feeding within 24 h may reduce hospital stay. High-risk patients (diabetes, obesity, elderly) may benefit from protein supplementation (1.2–1.5 g/kg/day) and selective fat-soluble vitamin monitoring when clinically indicated. We provide a risk-stratified algorithm, critically appraise conflicting evidence, and identify knowledge gaps. While standardized ERAS protocols exist for elective cases, complicated scenarios (acute cholecystitis, post-pancreatitis) require special consideration.
This review provides an evidence-informed, cautious framework for individualized postoperative nutritional support, emphasizing that most recommendations are extrapolated from other surgical populations and require validation in cholecystectomy-specific trials.
Chuang Guo, Yake Lan, Yu Zhang et al.· Frontiers in Surgery· 0 citations