SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2025
Safety and efficacy of enteral nutrition during prone ventilation: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of prone versus supine position during enteral nutrition on clinical outcomes and complications in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Interruption of enteral tube feeding during chest physiotherapy in critically ill adults: A scoping review.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundProne ventilation improves lung function in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome by enhancing oxygenation; however, managing enteral nutrition during prone ventilation is challenging due to body position changes.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of enteral nutrition during prone ventilation. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of enteral nutrition in the prone position in critically ill ventilated patients.MethodsBy searching databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and WanFang Data, the relevant literature was retrieved from their inception to 24 December 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate article quality. Egger's test was used to check for publication bias, and Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct the analyses.ResultsAmong 81 publications, five studies with a total sample size of 319 were included in this study. Enteral nutrition in the prone position, compared with that in the supine position, was associated with a lower energy achievement rate (mean difference: -0.88; 95% confidence interval: -1.83 to 0.06; P < 0.00001), no significant difference in mortality (odds ratio: 1.11; 95% confidence interval: 0.65 to 1.88; P = 0.7), a greater incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (odds ratio: 2.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 3.96; P = 0.02), more frequent vomiting (odds ratio: 2.38; 95% confidence interval: 1.61 to 3.50; P < 0.0001), a greater gastric residual volume (odds ratio: 2.72; 95% confidence interval: 1.47 to 5.03; P = 0.001), and increased interruptions in enteral nutrition (odds ratio: 4.75; 95% confidence interval: 2.22 to 10.17; P < 0.0001). The Egger's test suggested no significant publication bias in the meta-analysis of mortality, gastric residual volume, adequate enteral nutrition achievement, and ventilator-associated pneumonia.ConclusionA greater gastric residual volume, more frequent vomiting, and greater incidences of ventilator-associated pneumonia and enteral feeding interruptions are linked to enteral nutrition during prone ventilation. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the prone and supine positions. However, the prone position showed a slight trend toward reducing energy achievement rates, although this difference was not statistically significant.
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.