Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37479805›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2023

Clinical efficacy of enteral nutrition feeding modalities in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Jheng-Yan Wu, Mei-Yuan Liu, Ting-Hui Liu, Chia-Yin Kuo, Kuo-Chuan Hung, Ya-Wen Tsai, Chih-Cheng Lai, Wan-Hsuan Hsu, Min-Hsiang Chuang, Po-Yu Huang and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jheng-Yan Wu *Department of Nutrition, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-3290-1909
Mei-Yuan Liu *Department of Nutrition, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-3760-1945
Ting-Hui LiuDepartment of Psychiatry, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Chia-Yin KuoDepartment of Nutrition, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-9114-949X
Kuo-Chuan HungDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Ya-Wen TsaiCenter for Integrative Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Chih-Cheng LaiSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Wan-Hsuan HsuDepartment of General Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-2517-1792
Min-Hsiang ChuangDepartment of Internal Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Po-Yu HuangDepartment of Internal Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan. b0807249@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8682-1322
Hung-Tze TayDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan. milkmaid0329@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0004-2855-9022
Chi Mei Medical Center · TWNational Sun Yat-sen University · TWChung Hwa University of Medical Technology · TWKaohsiung Medical University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn intensive care units (ICUs), both continuous and intermittent feeding are commonly used for early enteral nutrition (EN). However, whether continuous feeding is a preferable feeding modality compared to intermittent feeding remains unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy of both EN feeding modalities in critically ill patients.

methodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception dates to December 29, 2022. The search did not involve language restrictions (PROSPERO CRD42022371756). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous feeding and intermittent feeding in critically ill patients in ICUs were included.

resultsWe included 13 RCTs involving 785 patients. Compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding was associated with a lower mortality rate (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47, 0.98; p = 0.04) but a higher risk of constipation (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02, 2.43; p = 0.04). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for mortality rate presented a cumulative Z-curve crossing the traditional boundary, but the curve did not cross the TSA boundary for benefit. No significant differences were found in the aspiration/pneumonia rate (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.51, 2.75; p = 0.69), diarrhea rate (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.16; p = 0.26), or increased gastric residual volumes (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.90; p = 0.86) between the groups.

conclusionDespite the low certainty of evidence, compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding may reduce the mortality rate in critically ill patients in ICU. Additional studies are needed to provide more evidence and validate the findings.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessEnteral NutritionHumansNutritional StatusRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID37479805
OpenAlexW4385064277

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.