Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12684745›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2003

Early enteral immunonutrition in patients with severe sepsis: results of an interim analysis of a randomized multicentre clinical trial.

Guido Bertolini, Gaetano Iapichino, Danilo Radrizzani, Rebecca Facchini, Bruno Simini, Paola Bruzzone, Giancarlo Zanforlin, Gianni Tognoni

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
20.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 329 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Guideline
  12. Guideline
  13. Guideline
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Guido BertoliniGiViTI Coordinating Center, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Centro di Ricerche Cliniche per le Malattie Rare Aldo e Cele Daccò, Ranica, Bergamo, Italy. bertolini@marionegri.it
Gaetano Iapichino
Danilo Radrizzani
Rebecca Facchini
Bruno Simini
Paola Bruzzone
Giancarlo Zanforlin
Gianni Tognoni
Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Civile di Legnano · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITMario Negri Sud Foundation · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the mortality of critically ill patients given either enteral feeding with an immune-enhancing formula or parenteral nutrition (PN). We report the results of a planned interim analysis on patients with severe sepsis which was undertaken earlier than planned once a meta-analysis suggested excess mortality in patients with severe sepsis given enteral immunonutrition.

designRandomised multicentre unblinded controlled clinical trial.

settingThirty-three General Intensive Care Units in Italy. PATIENTS AND

participantsAmong the 237 recruited patients, 39 had severe sepsis or septic shock; 21 of them received PN.

interventionsEligible patients received either total PN or enteral nutrition, the latter containing extra L-arginine, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, beta carotene, zinc, and selenium. MEASUREMENTS AND

resultsThe primary endpoint for the subgroup analysis on patients with severe sepsis was mortality on Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The ICU mortality of patients with severe sepsis given enteral nutrition (EN) was higher than for those given PN (44.4% vs 14.3%; p=0.039). More patients given EN than patients given PN still had severe sepsis when they died (38.9% vs 9.5%, p=0.055). Recruitment of patients with severe sepsis was subsequently stopped.

conclusionsOur results show that enteral immunonutrition, compared to PN, may be associated with excess mortality in patients with severe sepsis.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionParenteral NutritionSepsisAPACHEEnergy IntakeFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsItalyMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID12684745
OpenAlexW2098294394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.