ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2024
Early versus delayed enteral nutrition in ICU patients with sepsis: a propensity score-matched analysis based on the MIMIC-IV database.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Altered Dynamics in Splanchnic Amino Acid Extraction During Early Sepsis Recovery in Pigs: Whole Body Compared with Interorgan Balance Assessments.The Journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- The "cytokine storm" in infection and sepsis: win the battle but lose the war.Military Medical Research · 2026Review
- Early enteral nutrition and dynamic metabolic-inflammatory trajectories in sepsis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Application of the "oral simulated tube feeding method" in enteral nutrition for patients with moderately severe acute pancreatitis: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the nasogastric feeding route.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Early versus delayed enteral nutrition in critically ill children under 12 years of age: an economic evaluation.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Article
- Impact of early versus delayed enteral nutrition on ICU outcomes: a comparative study on mortality, ventilator dependence, and length of stay.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Impact of early enteral nutrition on the prognosis of mechanically ventilated patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study based on the MIMIC-IV Database.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Enhancing sepsis therapy: the evolving role of enteral nutrition.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended for sepsis management, but its optimal timing and clinical benefits remain uncertain. This study evaluates whether early EN improves outcomes compared to delayed EN in patients with sepsis. Methods: We analyzed data of septic patients from the MIMIC-IV 2.2 database, focusing on those in the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) and Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU). Patients who initiated EN within 3 days were classified into the early EN group, while those who started EN between 3 and 7 days were classified into the delayed EN group. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes between the groups. Results: Among 1,111 patients, 786 (70.7%) were in the early EN group and 325 (29.3%) were in the delayed EN group. Before propensity score matching, the early EN group demonstrated lower mortality (crude OR = 0.694; 95% CI: 0.514-0.936; Conclusion: Early enteral nutrition may not significantly reduce overall mortality in sepsis patients but may shorten ICU stays and decrease the incidence of AKI stage 3. Further research is needed to identify specific patient characteristics that benefit most from early EN.
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.