[Isolated dietary counselling program versus supplement and dietary counselling in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection].

What Was Tested

Researchers studied the intervention named in the title in this randomized controlled trial publication.

Nutritional intervention is a controversial area.

The aim of the study was to compare the influence on nutritional status of nutritional supplementation with a standard polymeric formula as well as nutritional counselling versus isolated nutritional counselling in a group of HIV-infected patients.

Who Took Part

According to the abstract, 70 patients were involved.

The age groups tagged for this paper are adults and middle-aged adults, both men and women.

There were 70 patients, 66 of whom were fully evaluated for each study end point after application of prospectively determined evaluability criteria.

Of these, 35 were randomized to group I (standard formula) and 35 were randomized to unsupplemented group II.

How the Study Was Run

The researchers set it up as a randomized study.

Because people in this study were split into groups at random, differences between the groups are less likely to reflect who happened to join each one.

Patients were submitted to a prospective serial assessment of their nutrition status (anthropometric and biochemical status) and the nutritional intake was determined by means of 24-hours written food records.

Determinations were performed at baseline and at 3 months.

What Was Measured

The subject headings attached to it are Anthropometry, Blood Chemical Analysis, CD4 Antigens, Counseling, Diet, Dietary Supplements and HIV Seropositivity.

What This Means in Plain Language

The paper is a randomized study in 70 patients.

The abstract goes on to report its results in about 7 sentences; this page does not restate them, so read the paper for the findings and their limits.

The publication is from 2003 (Medicina clinica), a journal based in Spain.

More context: all human trials.