Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36216665›Full record

Observational studyClinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)2022

Nutrition support practices across the care continuum in a single centre critical care unit during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic - A comparison of VV-ECMO and non-ECMO patients.

Georgia Hardy, Luigi Camporota, Danielle E Bear

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Physiological barriers to oral intake in survivors of critical illness: A scoping review.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Georgia HardyDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London UK; Department of Critical Care, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London UK.
Luigi CamporotaDepartment of Critical Care, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London UK.
Danielle E BearDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London UK; Department of Critical Care, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London UK. Electronic address: Danielle.Bear@gstt.nhs.uk.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsCritically ill patients with COVID-19 are at high nutrition risk. This study aimed to describe the nutrition support practices in a single centre critical care unit during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. Practices were explored from ICU admission to post-ICU follow-up clinic and patients who received veno-venous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) were compared to those who did not.

methodsThis retrospective observational study included COVID-19 positive, adult ICU patients who were mechanically ventilated for ≥72 h. Data were collected from ICU admission until the time of post-ICU clinic. For in-ICU data, results are compared between patients who did and did not receive VV-ECMO.

results252 patients were included (VV-ECMO n = 58). Adequate energy and protein was delivered in 193 (76.6%) patients during their ICU admission with no differences between those who did and did not receive VV-ECMO (44 (75.9%) vs. 149 (76.8%)). Parenteral nutrition only being required in 12 (4.8%) patients. Following stepdown to the ward 77 (70%) patients required ongoing enteral nutrition support, and 74 (66.7%) required a texture modified diet or were NBM. Following hospital discharge, nearly a third of ICU survivors (28.4%) were referred for dietetic input. The most common referral reason was loss of weight. Breathlessness and fatigue were the most commonly reported nutrition impact symptoms experienced following hospital discharge.

conclusionResults show it is possible to reach nutritional adequacy for most patients and that neither VV-ECMO nor proning were barriers to nutritional adequacy. Nutritional issues for patients who were critically ill with COVID-19 persist following stepdown to ward level and into the community and strategies to manage this require further investigation.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultCritical CareCritical IllnessHumansIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsPatient DischargeRetrospective StudiesARDSCOVID-19Critical careECMOEnteral feedingNutrition

Identifiers

PMID36216665
PMCPMC9463074
OpenAlexW4295129456

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.