Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35315122›Full record

ReviewNutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition2022

Energy requirements for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Ryan Burslem, Kimberly Gottesman, Melanie Newkirk, Jane Ziegler

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Energy requirements for critically ill patients with COVID-19.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2022
    Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Ryan BurslemDepartment of Clinical and Preventive Nutrition Sciences, School of Health Professions, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4319-8275
Kimberly GottesmanDepartment of Clinical and Preventive Nutrition Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA.
Melanie NewkirkDepartment of Clinical and Preventive Nutrition Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA.
Jane ZieglerDepartment of Clinical and Preventive Nutrition Sciences, Clinical Nutrition Program, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early reports suggested that predictive equations significantly underestimate the energy requirements of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on the results of indirect calorimetry (IC) measurements. IC is the gold standard for measuring energy expenditure in critically ill patients. However, IC is not available in many institutions. If predictive equations significantly underestimate energy requirements in severe COVID-19, this increases the risk of underfeeding and malnutrition, which is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. As such, the purpose of this narrative review is to summarize and synthesize evidence comparing measured resting energy expenditure via IC with predicted resting energy expenditure determined via commonly used predictive equations in adult critically ill patients with COVID-19. Five articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Their results suggest that many critically ill patients with COVID-19 are in a hypermetabolic state, which is underestimated by commonly used predictive equations in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. In nonobese patients, energy expenditure appears to progressively increase over the course of ICU admission, peaking at week 3. The metabolic response pattern in patients with obesity is unclear because of conflicting findings. Based on limited evidence published thus far, the most accurate predictive equations appear to be the Penn State equations; however, they still had poor individual accuracy overall, which increases the risk of underfeeding or overfeeding and, as such, renders the equations an unsuitable alternative to IC.

Indexed as

COVID-19Critical IllnessAdultCalorimetry, IndirectEnergy MetabolismHumansIntensive Care UnitsNutritional RequirementsCOVID-19critical illnessenergy requirementsindirect calorimetrynutrition supportSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35315122
PMCPMC9088341
OpenAlexW4220800957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.