Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29142894›Full record

ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2017

Comparison of Energy and Nutrient Contents of Commercial and Noncommercial Enteral Nutrition Solutions.

Nahid Ramezani Jolfaie, Mohammad Hossein Rouhani, Maryam Mirlohi, Mina Babashahi, Saeid Abbasi, Peiman Adibi, Ahmad Esmaillzadeh, Leila Azadbakht

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. The Microbial Quality and Safety of Blenderised Enteral Nutrition Formula: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Nahid Ramezani JolfaieFood Security Research Center and Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mohammad Hossein RouhaniFood Security Research Center and Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Maryam MirlohiFood Security Research Center and Department of Food Science and Technology, School of Nutrition and Food Science, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mina BabashahiFood Security Research Center and Department of Food Science and Technology, School of Nutrition and Food Science, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Saeid AbbasiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Peiman AdibiDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Ahmad EsmaillzadehFood Security Research Center and Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Leila AzadbakhtFood Security Research Center and Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNutritional support plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. This study aimed to compare the nutritional quality of enteral nutrition solutions (noncommercial vs. commercial) and the amount of energy and nutrients delivered and required in patients receiving these solutions. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted among 270 enterally fed patients. Demographic and clinical data in addition to values of nutritional needs and intakes were collected. Moreover, enteral nutrition solutions were analyzed in a food laboratory.

resultsThere were 150 patients who fed noncommercial enteral nutrition solutions (NCENS) and 120 patients who fed commercial enteral nutrition solutions (CENSs). Although energy and nutrients contents in CENSs were more than in NCENSs, these differences regarding energy, protein, carbohydrates, phosphorus, and calcium were not statistically significant. The values of energy and macronutrients delivered in patients who fed CENSs were higher (

conclusionCENSs contain more energy and nutrients compared with NCENSs. They are more effective to meet the nutritional requirements of entirely fed patients.

Indexed as

Critically ill patientsenteral nutrition solutionsnutritional statusnutritional support

Identifiers

PMID29142894
PMCPMC5672649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.