Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pritchard, C.
Right arrow Articles by Pang, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pritchard, C.
Right arrow Articles by Pang, F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reviews

Enteral Nutrition and Oral Nutrition Supplements: A Review of the Economics Literature

Clive Pritchard, PhD*, Steven Duffy, PGDip{dagger}, Jackie Edington, PhD{ddagger} and Francis Pang, PhD§

From the * Office of Health Economics, London, England; {dagger} NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, England;{ddagger} Orion Technology, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, England; and § Abbott Laboratories UK, Abbott House, Berkshire, England

Correspondence: Clive Pritchard, Office of Health Economics, 12 Whitehall, London SW1A 2DY, England. Electronic mail may be sent to cpritchard{at}ohe.org.

Background: We sought to review the economics literature on enteral nutrition (EN) and oral nutrition supplements (ONS) against the background of an ongoing clinical guideline development. Methods: We searched the Health Economic Evaluations Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Results: Enteral vs parenteral nutrition was found to be the most common comparison undertaken. The randomized trial evidence suggests that, in some groups of patients, EN is better in terms of clinical endpoints and/or length of hospital stay. This should translate into a lower mean cost for EN, given the reduced daily cost. These studies should be treated with caution because of their small sample size and poor quality. Costing was often crude and poorly reported, tending to focus on the narrow costs of the nutrition supplements. Only 1 study of a nutrition supplement in the community setting was found. Conclusions: There is some evidence to indicate economic advantages of enteral over parenteral nutrition and of immune-enhancing supplements relative to control diet. There is a lack of well-designed studies taking a broad view of relevant comparators, costs, and outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of different forms of nutrition in different patient groups remains to be established.

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 30, No. 1, 52-59 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/014860710603000152
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JPEN J Parenter Enteral NutrHome page
R. L. Koretz
The Perspective Less Viewed
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, January 1, 2006; 30(1): 63 - 65.
[Full Text] [PDF]