Trial reportPloS one2020
The implementation of a nutrition protocol in a surgical intensive care unit; a randomized controlled trial at a tertiary care hospital.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- The Japanese Critical Care Nutrition Guideline 2024.Journal of intensive care · 2025Review
- Relevance and application of clinical practice guidelines in different settings.The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalnutrition in critically ill patients is linked with significant mortality and morbidity. However, it remains controversial whether nutrition therapy protocols are effective in improving clinical outcomes. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a surgical ICU nutrition protocol, and to compare the hospital mortality, hospital LOS, and ICU LOS of protocol and non-protocol groups.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Surgical ICU, Siriraj Hospital. The nutrition administration of the control group was at the discretion of the attending physicians, whereas that of the intervention group followed the "Siriraj Surgical ICU Nutrition Protocol". Details of the demographic data, nutritional data, and clinical outcomes were collected.
resultsIn all, 170 patients underwent randomization, with 85 individuals each in the protocol and non-protocol groups. More than 90% of the patients in both groups were at risk of malnutrition, indicated by a score of ≥ 3 on the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 tool. The average daily calories of the 2 groups were very similar (protocol group, 775.4±342.2 kcal vs. control group, 773.0±391.9 kcal; p = 0.972). However, the median time to commence enteral nutrition was shorter for the protocol group (1.94 days) than the control group (2.25 days; p = 0.503). Enteral nutrition was provided within the first 48 hours to 53.7% of the protocol patients vs. 47.4% of the control patients (p = 0.589). In addition, a higher proportion of the protocol patients (36.5%) reached the 60% calorie-target on Day 4 after admission than that for the non-protocol group (25.9%; p = 0.136). All other clinical outcomes and nutrition-related complications were not significantly different.
conclusionsThe implementation of the nutrition protocol did not improve the feeding effectiveness or clinical outcomes as compared to usual nutrition management practices of the Surgical ICU.
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.