Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25184816›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2014

Development and current use of parenteral nutrition in critical care - an opinion paper.

Mette M Berger, Claude Pichard

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02682537 (IC-BASAROTs), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT02682537 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

IC-BASAROTs: Verification of a New Practice Method for More Accurate Bed-side Assessment of Individual Energy Expenditure

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Applied Sciences NeubrandenburgRan2015 to 2020Enrolled1,400ConditionsHealthy, Body Weight, Overweight, Thinness
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. An Overview of Recent Developments in the Management of Burn Injuries.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Management of parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients.World journal of critical care medicine · 2017
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Parenteral nutrition: never say never.Critical care (London, England) · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mette M BergerService de Médecine Intensive Adulte et Brûlés, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. mette.berger@chuv.ch.
Claude PichardClinical Nutrition, Geneva University Hospital, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211, Geneva, 14, Switzerland. Claude.Pichard@unige.ch.
University Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critically ill patients depend on artificial nutrition for the maintenance of their metabolic functions and lean body mass, as well as for limiting underfeeding-related complications. Current guidelines recommend enteral nutrition (EN), possibly within the first 48 hours, as the best way to provide the nutrients and prevent infections. EN may be difficult to realize or may be contraindicated in some patients, such as those presenting anatomic intestinal continuity problems or splanchnic ischemia. A series of contradictory trials regarding the best route and timing for feeding have left the medical community with great uncertainty regarding the place of parenteral nutrition (PN) in critically ill patients. Many of the deleterious effects attributed to PN result from inadequate indications, or from overfeeding. The latter is due firstly to the easier delivery of nutrients by PN compared with EN increasing the risk of overfeeding, and secondly to the use of approximate energy targets, generally based on predictive equations: these equations are static and inaccurate in about 70% of patients. Such high uncertainty about requirements compromises attempts at conducting nutrition trials without indirect calorimetry support because the results cannot be trusted; indeed, both underfeeding and overfeeding are equally deleterious. An individualized therapy is required. A pragmatic approach to feeding is proposed: at first to attempt EN whenever and as early as possible, then to use indirect calorimetry if available, and to monitor delivery and response to feeding, and finally to consider the option of combining EN with PN in case of insufficient EN from day 4 onwards.

Indexed as

Critical CareCritical IllnessHumansIntensive Care UnitsNutritional StatusParenteral Nutrition

Identifiers

PMID25184816
PMCPMC4423637
OpenAlexW2102278603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.