ArticleBMC medicine2022
Clinical impact of lipid injectable emulsion in internal medicine inpatients exclusively receiving parenteral nutrition: a propensity score matching analysis from a Japanese medical claims database.
Article in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parenteral dextrose during refeeding is associated with electrolyte deficiencies in anorexia nervosa: a route-specific analysis of oral and parenteral nutrition.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Solubilization techniques used for poorly water-soluble drugs.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough guidelines recommend lipid injectable emulsions (ILEs) be used as a part of parenteral nutrition, many patients in Japan receive lipid-free parenteral nutrition. Furthermore, little is known about the effect of ILEs on clinical outcomes in medical inpatients managed with parenteral nutrition. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of ILEs on internal medicine inpatients receiving parenteral nutrition.
methodsA propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed using a medical claims database covering 451 hospitals in Japan. Participants included the following internal medicine inpatients, ages ≥ 18 years, fasting > 10 days, and receiving exclusively parenteral nutrition, between 2011 and 2020. Participants were divided into 2 groups: those who did and did not receive ILEs. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. The secondary endpoints included intravenous catheter infection, activities of daily living (ADL), hospital length of stay (LOS), and total medical costs. To adjust for energy doses, logistic or multiple regression analyses were performed using energy dose as an additional explanatory variable.
resultsAfter PSM, 19,602 matched pairs were formed out of 61,437 patients. The ILE group had significantly lower incidences than the non-ILE group of in-hospital mortality (20.3% vs. 26.9%; odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.72; p < 0.001), deteriorated ADL (10.8% vs. 12.5%; OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (regression coefficient, - 0.8; 95% CI, - 1.6-0.0; p = 0.045). After adjusting for energy dose, these ORs or regression coefficients demonstrated the same tendencies and statistical significance. The mean total medical costs were $21,009 in the ILE group and $21,402 in the non-ILE group (p = 0.08), and the adjusted regression coefficient for the ILE vs. the non-ILE group was - $860 (95% CI, - $1252 to - $47).
conclusionsILE use was associated with improved clinical outcomes, including lower in-hospital mortality, in internal medicine inpatients receiving parenteral nutrition.
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.