ArticleBMJ open2020
Protocol for a multicentre longitudinal mixed-methods study: feeding and survivorship outcomes in previously healthy young paediatric Intensive care survivors (the PIES Study).
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Caregiver Perceptions of the Transition From Paediatric Intensive to Acute Care.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Factors associated with constipation in critically ill children: A retrospective study.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026Article
- Feeding Recovery in Post-PICU Patients: A Case Series in an Intensive Feeding Program.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Retrospective Analysis of a Multicenter Observational Study of the Relationship Between Social Determinants of Health and Complications After Children's Heart Surgery.Critical care explorations · 2025Observational
- Transitions from short to long-term outcomes in pediatric critical care: considerations for clinical practice.Translational pediatrics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAn admission to paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) is associated with multiple physical and environmental stressors, often involving many negative and painful oral experiences. Evidence from children with complex medical conditions suggests that feeding difficulties post-PICU stay are common, causing significant parental anxiety. Adult intensive care unit (ICU) survivor studies suggest feeding issues lasting up to 3 months post-discharge from ICU. There is, however, a paucity of evidence regarding feeding outcomes for previously healthy children following a PICU admission and whether painful oral experiences during an admission contribute to feeding difficulties post-discharge, negatively impacting on parental/caregiver anxiety. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This longitudinal mixed-methods study will explore the impact of feeding difficulties, identifying any clinical risk factors during the first 6 months of PICU discharge in previously healthy young children (≤4 years). Parents/caregivers of children will be asked to complete questionnaires relating to: feeding difficulties, parental/caregiver stress, and child and parental/caregivers' feeding behaviours at the point of PICU discharge, 1, 3 and 6 months post-discharge. Parents/caregivers will be invited to participate in qualitative semistructured interviews at 3 and 6 months post-PICU discharge exploring parental/caregiver experiences of feeding their child after PICU. Statistical analysis of the survey data will consist of descriptive and inferential statistics, plus qualitative analysis of any free text comments using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will provide an insight and increase our understanding of the prevalence of feeding difficulties in previously healthy children admitted to PICU and parental/caregiver experiences. Multiple methods will be used to ensure that the findings are effectively disseminated to service users, clinicians, policy and academic audiences. The study has full ethical approval from the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 20/YH/0160) and full governance clearance.
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.