ReviewWorld journal of critical care medicine2017
Management of parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients.
Review in World journal of critical care medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Candidemia Following Severe COVID-19 in Hospitalised and Critical Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Mycoses · 2024Pooled it
- Nutritional Challenges and Strategies in Obese Critically Ill Patients with Gynecological Cancer: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Carbamazepine mitigates parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease in a novel ambulatory piglet model.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2022Article
- Malignant Bowel Obstruction Management Over Time: Are We Doing Anything New? A Current Narrative Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Review
- Article
- Current Evidence for the Use of Smoflipid® Emulsion in Critical Care Patients for Parenteral Nutrition.Critical care research and practice · 2018Review
- Perioperative Care of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Focus on Nutritional Support.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial nutrition (AN) is necessary to meet the nutritional requirements of critically ill patients at nutrition risk because undernutrition determines a poorer prognosis in these patients. There is debate over which route of delivery of AN provides better outcomes and lesser complications. This review describes the management of parenteral nutrition (PN) in critically ill patients. The first aim is to discuss what should be done in order that the PN is safe. The second aim is to dispel "myths" about PN-related complications and show how prevention and monitoring are able to reach the goal of "near zero" PN complications. Finally, in this review is discussed the controversial issue of the route for delivering AN in critically ill patients. The fighting against PN complications should consider: (1) an appropriate blood glucose control; (2) the use of olive oil- and fish oil-based lipid emulsions alternative to soybean oil-based ones; (3) the adoption of insertion and care bundles for central venous access devices; and (4) the implementation of a policy of targeting "near zero" catheter-related bloodstream infections. Adopting all these strategies, the goal of "near zero" PN complications is achievable. If accurately managed, PN can be safely provided for most critically ill patients without expecting a relevant incidence of PN-related complications. Moreover, the use of protocols for the management of nutritional support and the presence of nutrition support teams may decrease PN-related complications. In conclusion, the key messages about the management of PN in critically ill patients are two. First, the dangers of PN-related complications have been exaggerated because complications are uncommon; moreover, infectious complications, as mechanical complications, are more properly catheter-related and not PN-related complications. Second, when enteral nutrition is not feasible or tolerated, PN is as effective and safe as enteral nutrition.
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.