The objective of this evidence-based review was to explore whether the evidence supports the use of nutritional supplements in pressure ulcer (PU) prevention strategies. Several electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to May week 32 019), Ovid EMBASE (1947 to May 28, 2019), EBSCO CINAHL (until June 13, 2019), Scopus (until July 9, 2019), and the Web of Science (until June 13, 2019) were searched. No limitation was placed on the year of publication. Studies considered for inclusion were those with adult populations, and only English language texts with available full text were reviewed. AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies included in the systematic review. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 Levels of Evidence was used to assess the level of evidence. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument (AGREE II) was used to assess guideline article, and Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) was also used for cross-sectional studies. The search identified 1761 studies. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 24 studies were retained of various designs, including 10 systematic reviews, five clinical reviews, three randomised controlled trials, two observational studies, one quasi-experimental study, one cross-sectional study, one cohort study, and one Clinical Guideline. Two were rated as high-quality reviews, 14 were rated as moderate-quality reviews, five were rated as low-quality reviews, and three were rated as critically low-quality reviews. The majority of the reviewed studies were of low-to-moderate quality because of biases in the study design and incomplete data reporting, which did not fulfil the reporting criteria of the appraisal tools. However, the majority of the studies showed a reduction in PU incidence after nutritional supplement though not significant. Whether the use of pharmacological appraisal tools to assess non-pharmacological studies is appropriate is unclear. Regardless of the low-to-moderate quality of the studies in this review, nutritional supplements appear to play a role in PU prevention.

Persons with dementia are at risk of malnutrition, evidenced by low dietary intake, which has consequences for nutritional status, activity of daily living and disease progression. The effects of oral nutrition supplements (ONS) on nutritional intake, nutritional status, and cognitive and physical outcomes in older persons with dementia were evaluated.
PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched in December 2017, and this was repeated in May 2019. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Analysis (PRISMA) checklist was used. Papers were considered if they presented experimental clinical trials using oral nutritional supplements to persons diagnosed with dementia, including Alzheimer\'s disease and mild cognitive impairment, and conducted in hospitals, nursing homes or homes.
We included ten articles reporting nine clinical trials. A total of 407 persons with dementia were included, of whom 228 used ONS for 7 to 180 days. Nutritional intake improved by 201 to 600 kcal/day. Energy intake from ordinary foods was not affected, thus ONS improved the persons daily intake of energy and protein. Body weight, muscle mass, and nutritional biomarkers in blood improved in the intervention groups compared with the control groups. No effects on cognition or physical outcomes were observed.
ONS increases the intake of energy and protein and improves nutritional status in persons with dementia; however, RCTs with longer intervention periods are needed to investigate the impact on cognitive and functional outcomes.

Beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyrate (HMB), a metabolite of leucine, is currently widely used in athletes to increase muscle mass and strength and has also been used as a nutritional supplement in recent years to maintain muscle mass in muscular atrophic diseases of older people. However, the effects of HMB supplementation on muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical function in older people remain controversial. The purpose of this review was to explore the effects of HMB on body composition in older adults.
The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to obtain the randomized controlled trials needed as a basis for systematic review and meta-analysis.
A total of 9 studies (448 participants) were eventually found eligible. The pooled results showed that HMB supplementation significantly increased fat-free mass in older people compared with the control group (effect size: 0.37; 95% Cl 0.16, 0.58; Z value = 3.47, P = 0.001; Fixed-effect model). But it had no effect on fat mass (effect size: - 0.04 95% CI - 0.26, 0.18; Z value = 0.36, P = 0.716, fixed-effect model). Subgroup analysis of HMB supplementation alone showed a significant improvement in fat-free mass in older people (effect size: 0.59; 95% CI 0.32, 0.87; Z = 4.24, P < 0.001; fixed-effect model), whereas HMB supplementation combined with exercise intervention showed no additional fat-free mass change (effect size: 0.06; 95% CI - 0.26, 0.38; Z = 0.38, P = 0.705; Fixed-effect model).
HMB supplementation is beneficial for improving body composition in older people. However, the effect of HMB supplementation combined with exercise therapy to improve muscle mass is not obvious. Exercise programs need to be designed according to the different physical health of older people.