ArticleJPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition2023
Postpyloric vs gastric enteral nutrition in critically ill children: A single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to describe enteral nutrition (EN) delivery in patients receiving postpyloric EN (PPEN) vs gastric EN (GEN).
methodsSingle-center retrospective study including patients aged <21 years admitted to an intensive care unit in a pediatric quaternary care hospital for ≧48 h who received PPEN or GEN as a first approach, as guided by a nutrition algorithm. PPEN patients were 1:1 propensity score matched to GEN patients on demographics, clinical characteristics, and disease severity. Days to EN initiation from admission, percentage of EN adequacy (delivered EN volume/prescribed EN volume) on days 1-3 and 7 after EN initiation, and time to achieving 60% of prescribed EN volume were compared between the two groups using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney tests and a Cox proportional hazards model. Data are presented as median (IQR1, IQR3).
resultsForty-six PPEN and 46 GEN patients were matched. Median time to EN initiation was 3.25 (2, 6.8) days for PPEN and 4.15 (1.5, 7.1) days for GEN (P = 0.6). Percentage of EN adequacy was greater for PPEN than GEN patients (day 1 PPEN 59.4% [18.8, 87.5] vs GEN 21.1% [7.8, 62.8], day 2 PPEN 54.3% [16.7, 95.8] vs GEN 24% [5.4, 56.7], day 3 PPEN 65.4% [14.7, 100] vs GEN 16% [0, 64.6], day 7 PPEN 77.8% [11.1, 100] vs GEN 13.8% [0, 74.5]; P < 0.05). PPEN patients had greater likelihood of achieving 60% of their prescribed EN volume than GEN patients (hazard ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.07-3.15; P = 0.028).
conclusionPPEN was associated with greater EN delivery compared with GEN.
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.