Nutrition for critically ill patients: how much is enough?

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.

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.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Physical and cognitive performance of patients with acute lung injury 1 year after initial trophic versus full enteral feeding. EDEN trial follow-up.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2013
   Trial
2. One year outcomes in patients with acute lung injury randomised to initial trophic or full enteral feeding: prospective follow-up of EDEN randomised trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013
   Trial
3. Metabolic and nutritional support of critically ill patients: consensus and controversies.Critical care (London, England) · 2015
   Review
4. Does artificial nutrition improve outcome of critical illness?Critical care (London, England) · 2013
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Initial trophic vs full enteral feeding in patients with acute lung injury: the EDEN randomized trial.2012

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as