ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Comparison of standard polymer formula versus short peptide formula in sepsis patients with acute gastrointestinal injury.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To investigate the selection of enteral nutrition (EN) formulas for critically ill sepsis patients with acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) grade I-II. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on critically ill sepsis patients with AGI grades I-II. The primary outcomes were EN caloric adequacy on day 7, calories and protein gain from EN within 3-7 days, and the incidence of gastric retention and diarrhea after EN administration. We performed a subgroup analysis based on whether patients initiated EN within 48 h. Results: In the early EN subgroup, caloric adequacy, calories and protein gain of EN on day 7 of the short-peptide group was higher than that of the standard-polymeric group (59.1% vs. 27.3%, Conclusion: In sepsis patients with AGI grades I-II, short-peptide formulas may be considered for early EN initiation (≤48 h), while standard-polymer formulas may be an option for late EN initiation (>48 h). Exploratory results need to be interpreted with caution and await verification of these findings through high-quality research.
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.