Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23820047›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2013

Small bowel feeding and risk of pneumonia in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Waleed Alhazzani, Abdulaziz Almasoud, Roman Jaeschke, Benjamin W Y Lo, Anees Sindi, Sultan Altayyar, Alison E Fox-Robichaud

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [S3 Guideline Sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and aftercare : Long version].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020
    Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Impact of selective digestive decontamination on respiratory tract Candida among patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. A meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2016
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Waleed Alhazzani
Abdulaziz Almasoud
Roman Jaeschke
Benjamin W Y Lo
Anees Sindi
Sultan Altayyar
Alison E Fox-Robichaud
McMaster University Medical Centre · CAPrince Sultan University · SAKing Abdulaziz University · SARiyadh Armed Forces Hospital · SASt. Michael's Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of small bowel feeding compared with gastric feeding on the frequency of pneumonia and other patient-important outcomes in critically ill patients.

methodsWe searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, clinicaltrials.gov and personal files from 1980 to Dec 2012, and conferences and proceedings from 1993 to Dec 2012 for randomized trials of adult critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) comparing small bowel feeding to gastric feeding, and evaluating risk of pneumonia, mortality, length of ICU stay, achievement of caloric requirements, duration of mechanical ventilation, vomiting, and aspiration. Independently, in duplicate, we abstracted trial characteristics, outcomes and risk of bias.

resultsWe included 19 trials with 1394 patients. Small bowel feeding compared to gastric feeding was associated with reduced risk of pneumonia (risk ratio [RR] 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55, 0.90; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53, 0.89; P = 0.005; I2 = 0%), with no difference in mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90, 1.29; P = 0.43; I2 = 0%), length of ICU stay (WMD -0.57; 95%CI -1.79, 0.66; P = 0.37; I2 = 0%), duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -1.01; 95%CI -3.37, 1.35; P = 0.40; I2 = 17%), gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.56, 1.42; P = 0.64; I2 = 0%), aspiration (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.52, 1.65; P = 0.79; I2 = 0%), and vomiting (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.53, 1.54; P = 0.72; I2 = 57%). The overall quality of evidence was low for pneumonia outcome.

conclusionsSmall bowel feeding, in comparison with gastric feeding, reduces the risk of pneumonia in critically ill patients without affecting mortality, length of ICU stay or duration of mechanical ventilation. These observations are limited by variation in pneumonia definition, imprecision, risk of bias and small sample size of individual trials.

Indexed as

AdultCritical CareCritical IllnessCross InfectionEnteral NutritionHumansIntestine, SmallLength of StayPneumoniaPneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedRespiration, ArtificialStomach

Identifiers

PMID23820047
PMCPMC4056009
OpenAlexW2093711508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.