ArticleJPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition2025
Nutritional adequacy in critically ill adults receiving noninvasive ventilation: A descriptive cohort study.
Article in JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nutritional strategies for noninvasively ventilated critically ill patients: results from the NUTRINIV retrospective study.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Nutritional adequacy in critically ill adults receiving noninvasive ventilation: A descriptive cohort study.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral 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
backgroundNoninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly being used in critical care, yet limited evidence exists guiding nutrition practices for patients who are critically ill receiving NIV. This study aimed to describe the nutrition practices and adequacy of nutrition intake among patients who are critically ill receiving NIV.
methodsThis descriptive cohort study included adult patients admitted to critical care who received NIV on ≥3 consecutive days. Prospectively recorded clinical data were retrospectively extracted from electronic medical records and compared between patients who received solely noninvasive ventilation (NIV only) and those who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and were extubated onto noninvasive ventilation (post-IMV group).
resultsOf the 220 patients included (107 NIV only; 113 post-IMV), 142 (64.5%) received exclusive oral nutrition, 66 (30.0%) received artificial nutrition support, and 12 (5.5%) received no nutrition. Enteral nutrition was more prevalent in the post-IMV group (36 [31.9%] vs NIV only 19 [17.8%]; P = 0.01), whereas exclusive oral nutrition was more prevalent in the NIV-only group (86 [80.4%] vs post-IMV 66 [58.4%]; P < 0.001). Most patients who received purely exclusive oral nutrition (n = 152) had inadequate intake (94 [61.8%]).
conclusionMost patients with critically illness receiving NIV received exclusive oral nutrition, which was found to be inadequate in the majority. Patients receiving NIV represent a nutritionally at-risk population, and future studies are needed to understand the barriers to oral intake and the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of enteral nutrition.
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.