SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Optimal timing of enteral nutrition initiation in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nutritional support is pivotal in managing critically ill patients. Enteral nutrition, which preserves intestinal mucosal barrier function and modulates immune-metabolic homeostasis, is the preferred nutritional support strategy. However, the optimal timing for initiating EN remains controversial: some studies advocate early initiation (within 24-48 h), while others suggest delayed initiation (beyond 48 h), resulting in inconsistent clinical practices and conflicting guideline recommendations. This highlights the need for high-quality evidence to clarify the optimal EN initiation window. Objective: This network meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the effects of five EN initiation timings on key clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, rank their efficacy, and identify the optimal initiation window, thereby providing evidence-based guidance for clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis following the PRISMA-NMA statement, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the five EN initiation timings in critically ill adults. Databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to September 2024. Data analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 and RevMan 5.4, with efficacy ranked via the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: Fifteen RCTs were included, involving five EN initiation timings: <24 h, 24-48 h, 48-72 h, 72-96 h, and >96 h. No statistically significant differences in mortality or ICU length of stay were observed between any two timings. However, SUCRA ranking showed that 24-48 h initiation had the highest probability of reducing mortality (SUCRA = 67.0), while >96 h initiation was most likely to shorten ICU length of stay (SUCRA = 75.2). Conclusion: Initiating EN beyond 96 h was associated with the shortest ICU stay, while initiating it within 24-48 h may be associated with lower mortality. Based on the current limited evidence, the 24-48 h window may be relatively optimal for improving clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. However, given the small number of included studies and low to moderate evidence quality, this conclusion requires validation in large, high-quality RCTs. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024581390. identifier PROSPERO (CRD42024581390).
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.