Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31912312›Full record

ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2020

Gastrointestinal Dysfunction and Feeding Intolerance in Critical Illness: Do We Need an Objective Scoring System?

Stephen A McClave, Jill Gualdoni, Annie Nagengast, Luis S Marsano, Kathryn Bandy, Robert G Martindale

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Comparison of enteral prucaloprideFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen A McClaveDepartment of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA. samcclave@louisville.edu.
Jill GualdoniDepartment of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Annie NagengastDepartment of Surgery, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA.
Luis S MarsanoDepartment of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Kathryn BandyDepartment of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Robert G MartindaleDepartment of Surgery, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA.
University of Louisville · USOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewEfforts to provide early enteral nutrition in critical illness are thwarted by gastrointestinal dysfunction and feeding intolerance. While many of the signs and symptoms of this dysfunction reflect gastroparesis and intestinal dysmotility, other symptoms which may or may not be related are often included such as diarrhea, bleeding, and intra-abdominal hypertension. This paper discusses the need to monitor tolerance of nutritional therapy in the critical care setting and reviews the results of those clinical trials which have helped establish objective measures, define feeding intolerance, and provide a tool to guide continued delivery of the enteral regimen. RECENT

findingsWhile definitions vary, the presence of gastrointestinal dysfunction and feeding intolerance correlates with adverse clinical outcomes, including prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation, greater length of stay in the intensive care unit, and increased mortality. Despite their prognostic value, it is not clear to what extent these scoring systems should direct nutritional therapy. The clinician should be astute in the careful selection of monitors, in identifying and addressing signs and symptoms of intolerance, and by responding appropriately with feeding strategies that are effective and safe. Early enteral feeding in critical illness has been shown to be optimized by following protocols which allow monitoring patient tolerance while providing individualized care.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessEnteral NutritionClinical ProtocolsCritical CareGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansPrognosisSeverity of Illness IndexEnteral nutritionFeeding intoleranceGastric residual volumesGastrointestinal failureGastrointestinal tolerance

Identifiers

PMID31912312
OpenAlexW3000037451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.