Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39300571›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2024

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients.

Lydia S Acharya, Anne M Clayton, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Simon Oczkowski, Bram Rochwerg, Jennifer Tsang, Kaitryn Campbell, Karin Dearness, Joanna C Dionne

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

9 authors.

Lydia S AcharyaFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. lacha042@uottawa.ca.
Anne M ClaytonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Simon OczkowskiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Bram RochwergDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jennifer TsangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kaitryn CampbellSt. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Karin DearnessSt. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Joanna C DionneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEnteral nutrition (EN) is the recommended nutritional support in most critically ill populations. When given by feeding tube, EN may be administered either continuously or intermittently. It is unclear which approach is superior in reducing gastrointestinal complications-such as diarrhea-and meeting nutritional targets. The main objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to (1) determine whether continuous or intermittent enteral nutrition is associated with higher incidence of adverse gastrointestinal outcomes, including diarrhea, and (2) determine which feeding modality is associated with reaching nutritional goals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol is reported in accordance with guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) search portal for studies comparing continuous EN and intermittent EN in critically ill patients with no date or language restrictions. Studies will be screened, selected, and extracted independently and in duplicate. We will assess the risk-of-bias assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool. The primary outcome will include the incidence of diarrhea; secondary outcomes include other adverse GI outcomes (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and constipation), as well as reaching nutritional goals, and length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality. We will pool data using a random-effects model and assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study as no original data will be collected. We will disseminate results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022330118.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessDiarrheaEnteral NutritionHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicBolus feedingContinuous feedingDiarrheaEnteral nutritionGastrointestinal systemIntensive care unitIntermittent feeding

Identifiers

PMID39300571
PMCPMC11411811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.