ReviewCureus2024
Bolus Versus Continuous Enteral Feeding for Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison the effect of continuous and bolus enteral nutrition methods on serum albumin and prealbumin in critical ill patients: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Trial
- Improving the Outcome of Brain-Injured Patients by Non-Continuous Feeding to Prevent Dysbiosis.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based predictive model for enteral nutrition-associated diarrhea in ICU patients and its nursing applications.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enteral feeding is a crucial aspect of nutritional support for critically ill patients. However, the optimal feeding approach, whether bolus or continuous, remains a subject of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of bolus feeding and continuous enteral feeding in critically ill patients. A systemic search was carried out in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Ultimate, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. To ensure that we obtain the latest evidence on the topic, the search was limited to the last five years. Risk of bias assessments and meta-analyses were performed for relevant clinical outcomes. A total of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving a total of 863 patients. All the studies were published between 2020 and 2023. High-risk performance bias was observed in seven studies, with unclear risk in two studies. In terms of clinical outcomes, no statistically significant differences were found between bolus and continuous enteral feeding in terms of diarrhea (odds ratio {OR} 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.30, p=0.20), constipation (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.53, p=0.11), vomiting (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.49, p=0.39), distention (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.58, p=0.66), aspiration (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.73, p=0.48), and gastric residual volume (GRV) (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.15, p=0.66). Furthermore, no significant differences between bolus and continuous feeding were observed in terms of intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.04, p=0.07), hospital mortality (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.03, p=0.06), ICU length of stay (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.90, p=0.25), and hospital length of stay (OR -0.86, 95% CI -3.04 to 1.33, p=0.44). This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that bolus and continuous enteral feeding methods exhibit comparable outcomes in critically ill patients. However, both ICU mortality and hospital mortality outcomes were close to achieving statistical significance, which favored the continuous feeding approach.
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.