SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2026
Comparison of the effects of different models of nutrient supply on nutritional status and clinical outcomes in ICU patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesNutrition support improves ICU patients' nutritional status and outcomes, but optimal models remain unclear. We performed a Bayesian and frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review to assess improvements in nutritional indicators and clinical outcomes.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science up to November 23, 2023 for Randomised controlled trials (RCT), case-control studies, and cohort studies. Outcomes mainly included serum albumin values, length of hospitalization, infection rates, feeding-related complication rates and mortality. All the analyses were conducted using STATA 17.0 and R software version 4.5.1.
resultsA total of 26 studies were included, enrolling 7698 critically ill ICU patients receiving four different types of nutrition support, including parenteral nutrition (PN), enteral nutrition (EN), enteral immunonutrition (EIN), and parenteral nutrition combined with enteral nutrition (PN + EN). The NMA results showed that according to SUCRA, PN + EN had the highest probability of being the most effective intervention for improving serum albumin values (SUCRA = 84.5%) and reducing infection rates (SUCRA = 83.0%) and mortality rates (SUCRA = 82.7%). PN had the highest probability of reducing the length of hospitalization (SUCRA = 77.9%), while EIN had the highest probability of reducing feeding-related complication rates (SUCRA = 81.0%).
conclusionThe available evidence suggests that all four models of nutrition support affect the nutritional status and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients in the ICU to varying degrees. However, EN + PN appears to be the most effective approach in improving clinical outcomes and nutrition support in critically ill ICU patients. More high-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41714821What 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.