Observational studyClinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)2022
Intermittent versus continuous enteral nutrition in critically ill children: A pre-planned secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuous versus Intermittent Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Children: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of Protocol-Based Continuous and Intermittent Tube Feeding in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Children - An Open Label Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2024Trial
- Article
- Chrononutrition in Critical Illness.Nutrition reviews · 2025Review
- An Assessment of Intermittent and Continuous Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Children.Nutrients · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsIntermittent enteral nutrition (EN) may have physiologic benefits over continuous feeding in critical illness. We aimed to compare nutrition and infection outcomes in critically ill children receiving intermittent or continuous EN.
methodsInternational, multi-center prospective observational study of mechanically ventilated children, 1 month to 18 years of age, receiving EN. Percent energy or protein adequacy (energy or protein delivered/prescribed × 100) and acquired infection rates were compared between intermittent and continuous EN groups using adjusted-multivariable and 4:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed after excluding patients who crossed over between intermittent and continuous EN.
results1375 eligible patients from 66 PICUs were included. Patients receiving continuous EN (N = 1093) had a higher prevalence of respiratory illness and obesity, and lower prevalence of neurologic illness and underweight status on admission, compared to those on intermittent EN (N = 282). Percent energy or protein adequacy, proportion of patients who achieved 60% of energy or protein adequacy in the first 7 days of admission, and rates of acquired infection were not different between the 2 groups in adjusted-multivariable and propensity score matching analyses (P > 0.05).
conclusionIntermittent versus continuous EN strategy is not associated with differences in energy or protein adequacy, or acquired infections, in mechanically ventilated, critically ill children. Until further evidence is available, an individualized feeding strategy rather than a universal approach may be appropriate.
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.