Trial reportBMJ open2017
Early low-energy versus high-energy enteral nutrition support in patients with traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rationale and design of a PROBE trial comparing continuous enteral nutrition to time-restricted enteral nutrition in severe stroke.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2026Trial
- Optimal Nutritional Factors Influencing the Duration of Mechanical Ventilation Among Adult Patients with Critical Illnesses in an Intensive Care Unit.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly enteral nutrition (EN) is associated with shorter hospital stay and lower infection and mortality rates in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. However, high-energy support always causes clinical complications, such as diarrhoea and aspiration pneumonia, and the true benefit of high-energy support in these patients has not been investigated. The appropriate amount of energy support still needs further investigation. Therefore, we are performing a randomised controlled trial to investigate whether early low-energy EN can decrease mortality and feeding-related complications and improve neurological outcomes as compared with high-energy EN in traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage (TICH) patients. METHODS/ANALYSIS: This is a randomised, single-blind clinical trial performed in one teaching hospital. 220 TICH patients will be randomly allocated to one of two groups in a 1:1 ratio: an intervention group, and a control group. The intervention group will receive early low-energy EN (10 kcal/kg/day) and the control group will receive high-energy EN (25 kcal/kg/day) for 7 days. All these patients will be followed up for 90 days. The primary outcome is all-cause 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include the modified Rankin score, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Outcomes will be assessed at admission, 7, 30 and 90 days after onset of this trial. The safety of EN strategies will be assessed every day during hospitalisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the ethics committee of Dongyang People's Hospital. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR-INR-17011384; Pre-results.
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.