ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science
Continuous versus bolus tube feeds: Does the modality affect glycemic variability, tube feeding volume, caloric intake, or insulin utilization?
Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03017079 (A More Physiological Feeding Process in ICU), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A More Physiological Feeding Process in ICU:the Intermittent Infusion With Semi-solidification of Nutrients
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intermittent versus continuous enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy of enteral nutrition feeding modalities in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Continuous versus Intermittent Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Children: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Intermittent enteral nutrition shortens the time to achieve nutritional goals in critically ill patients.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Continuous versus Intermittent Enteral Tube Feeding for Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.Nutrients · 2022Trial
- Intermittent versus continuous tube feeding in patients with hemorrhagic stroke: a randomized controlled clinical trial.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2020Trial
- A more physiological feeding process in ICU: Intermittent infusion with semi-solid nutrients (CONSORT-compliant).Medicine · 2018Trial
- Which is better for glycemic control? bolus, intermittent (nocturnal pause) or continuous enteral feeding in septic critically ill patients.Science progressTrial
- Variability in Key Physiological Parameters in Neurocritical Stroke Patients: A Multicenter Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A New Perspective on Overfeeding in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU): Challenges, Dangers and Prevention Methods.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Disadvantages of various methods of gastrointestinal feeding in patients admitted to the intensive care unit: A systematic review.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Foods for Special Medical Purposes in Home Enteral Nutrition-Clinical Practice Experience. Multicenter Study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Article
- Towards a fasting-mimicking diet for critically ill patients: the pilot randomized crossover ICU-FM-1 study.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Article
- From Best Evidence to Best Practice: Enteral Nutrition from Continuous Nasal Feeding in Stroke Patients.International journal of general medicine · 2020Article
- Bronchial nasoenteric tube misplacement: Effective prevention, prompt recognition, and patient safety considerations.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEnteral nutrition (EN) is very important to optimizing outcomes in critical illness. Debate exists regarding the best strategy for enteral tube feeding (TF), with concerns that bolus TF (BTF) may increase glycemic variability (GV) but result in fewer nutritional interruptions than continuous TF (CTF). This study examines if there is a difference in GV, insulin usage, TF volume, and caloric delivery among intensive care patients receiving BTF versus CTF. We hypothesize that there are no significant differences between CTF and BTF when comparing the above parameters. MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective, randomized pilot study of critically ill adult patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement for EN was performed between March 1, 2012 and May 15, 2014. Patients were randomized to BTF or CTF. Glucose values, insulin use, TF volume, and calories administered were recorded. Data were organized into 12-h epochs for statistical analyses and GV determination. In addition, time to ≥80% nutritional delivery goal, demographics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, and TF interruptions were examined. When performing BTF versus CTF assessments, continuous parameters were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test or repeated measures t-test, as appropriate. Categorical data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test.
resultsNo significant demographic or physiologic differences between the CTF (n = 24) and BTF (n = 26) groups were seen. The immediate post-PEG 12-h epoch showed significantly lower GV and median TF volume for patients in the CTF group. All subsequent epochs (up to 18 days post-PEG) showed no differences in GV, insulin use, TF volume, or caloric intake. Insulin use for both groups increased when comparing the first 24 h post-PEG values to measurements from day 8. There were no differences in TF interruptions, time to ≥80% nutritional delivery goal, or hypoglycemic episodes.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated no clinically relevant differences in GV, insulin use, TF volume or caloric intake between BTF and CTF groups. Despite some shortcomings, our data suggest that providers should not feel limited to BTF or CTF because of concerns for GV, time to goal nutrition, insulin use, or caloric intake, and should consider other factors such as resource utilization, ease of administration, and/or institutional/patient characteristics.
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.