ArticleClinical nutrition open science2022
Administration of enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal complications in Covid-19 critical patients in prone position.
Article in Clinical nutrition open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of enteral nutrition during prone ventilation: A meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of prone versus supine position during enteral nutrition on clinical outcomes and complications in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Association of an evidence-informed nasogastric enteral nutrition nursing pathway with gastrointestinal recovery and nutritional status in neurosurgical critical care: a retrospective quasi-experimental cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- The Influence of Prone Positioning on Energy and Protein Delivery in COVID-19 Patients Requiring ECMO Support.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Nutritional management in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective multicentre study.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2024Observational
- Metabolic Support in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Medical Nutrition Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19-A Single-Center Observational Study.Nutrients · 2023Observational
- Enteral Nutrition Safety and Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19 on Continuous Infusion of Neuromuscular Blockers: A Retrospective Study.Journal of nutrition and metabolism · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prone position (PP) used in the treatment of critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, may be a barrier to enteral nutrition (EN). This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness and complications of EN in the PP, as well as clinical outcomes. Methods: Prospective cohort study with patients in EN and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on mechanical ventilation (MV), which whom needed or not PP. Gastrointestinal intolerances (GII) related to PP were evaluated, and correlated with possible confounding factors. EN, days on MV, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) length of stay, hospital length of stay, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and mortality were analyzed. The data were evaluated daily and compared prone group (PG=57) and supine group (SG=69). Results: The PP was associated with GII ( Conclusion: PP was a determining factor in GII and proved to be a risk factor for VAP, but the EN protocol seems to have ensured an adequate EN supply in PP and be a safe alternative.
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.