Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28841893›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2017

The role of nutritional support in the physical and functional recovery of critically ill patients: a narrative review.

Danielle E Bear, Liesl Wandrag, Judith L Merriweather, Bronwen Connolly, Nicholas Hart, Michael P W Grocott, Enhanced Recovery After Critical Illness Programme Group (ERACIP) investigators

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Post Hospital Discharge Functional Recovery of Critical Illness Survivors. Systematic Review.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2023
    Article
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

7 authors.

Danielle E BearDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Danielle.Bear@gstt.nhs.uk.
Liesl WandragDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Judith L MerriweatherAnaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Bronwen ConnollyNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Nicholas HartDivision of Asthma, Allergy, and Lung Biology, King's College London, London, UK.
Michael P W GrocottIntegrative Physiology and Critical Illness Group, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Enhanced Recovery After Critical Illness Programme Group (ERACIP) investigators

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2015-08-015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The lack of benefit from randomised controlled trials has resulted in significant controversy regarding the role of nutrition during critical illness in terms of long-term recovery and outcome. Although methodological caveats with a failure to adequately appreciate biological mechanisms may explain these disappointing results, it must be acknowledged that nutritional support during early critical illness, when considered alone, may have limited long-term functional impact.This narrative review focuses specifically on recent clinical trials and evaluates the impact of nutrition during critical illness on long-term physical and functional recovery.Specific focus on the trial design and methodological limitations has been considered in detail. Limitations include delivery of caloric and protein targets, patient heterogeneity, short duration of intervention, inappropriate clinical outcomes and a disregard for baseline nutritional status and nutritional intake in the post-ICU period.With survivorship at the forefront of critical care research, it is imperative that nutrition studies carefully consider biological mechanisms and trial design because these factors can strongly influence outcomes, in particular long-term physical and functional outcome. Failure to do so may lead to inconclusive clinical trials and consequent rejection of the potentially beneficial effects of nutrition interventions during critical illness.

Indexed as

Recovery of FunctionCritical IllnessEnergy IntakeHumansNutritional StatusNutritional SupportTime FactorsCritical illnessEnergyNutritionPhysical recoveryProtein

Identifiers

PMID28841893
PMCPMC6389279

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.