ArticleChest2014
Temporal trends in the use of parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients.
Article in Chest, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Host-Microbiome Interaction in the Intensive Care Unit.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines recommend enteral over parenteral nutrition in critical illness and do not recommend early initiation. Few data are available on parenteral nutrition use or timing of initiation in the ICU or how this use may have changed over time.
methodsWe used the Project IMPACT database to evaluate temporal trends in parenteral nutrition use (total and partial parenteral nutrition and lipid supplementation) and timing of initiation in adult ICU admissions from 2001 to 2008. We used χ2 tests and analysis of variance to examine characteristics of patients receiving parenteral nutrition and multilevel multivariate logistic regression models to assess parenteral nutrition use over time, in all patients and in specific subgroups.
resultsOf 337,442 patients, 20,913 (6.2%) received parenteral nutrition. Adjusting for patient characteristics, the use of parenteral nutrition decreased modestly over time (adjusted probability, 7.2% in 2001-2002 vs 5.5% in 2007-2008, P<.001). Enteral nutrition use increased simultaneously (adjusted probability, 11.5% in 2001-2002 vs 15.3% in 2007-2008, P<.001). Use of parenteral nutrition declined most rapidly in emergent surgical patients, patients with moderate illness severity, patients in the surgical ICU, and patients admitted to an academic facility (P≤.01 for all interactions with year). When used, parenteral nutrition was initiated a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 1-3), after ICU admission and >90% of patients had parenteral nutrition initiated within 7 days; timing of initiation of parenteral nutrition did not change from 2001 to 2008.
conclusionsUse of parenteral nutrition in US ICUs declined from 2001 through 2008 in all patients and in all examined subgroups, with the majority of parenteral nutrition initiated within the first 7 days in ICU; enteral nutrition use coincidently increased over the same time period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.