ReviewIntensive care medicine2026
Nutrition support in the ICU: current evidence and evolving standards.
Review in Intensive care medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nutritional support is a cornerstone of care in critically ill patients, yet the optimal delivery of macronutrient across phases of critical illness remains controversial. During the acute phase, profound metabolic alterations including anabolic resistance, enhanced proteolysis and endogenous energy production contribute to rapid muscle wasting. Recent large randomized trials have challenged the traditional paradigm of early full nutritional replacement, which may cause harm through overfeeding, refeeding syndrome, impaired autophagy, and metabolic intolerance. Low-calorie and low-protein strategies during the first week of critical illness, particularly in mechanically ventilated patients requiring organ support, may improve recovery and reduce complications. Increasing protein delivery has not consistently improved survival or functional recovery and may even be harmful, especially in patients with acute kidney injury. Current evidence therefore supports a cautious, individualized approach, with avoidance of overfeeding and consideration of low-calorie, low-protein feeding strategies while carefully monitoring gastrointestinal tolerance, metabolic complications and electrolyte disturbances. During the recovery phase, as inflammation resolves and anabolic processes emerge, nutritional priorities shift toward restoration of lean body mass and functional recovery. However, evidence defining optimal macronutrient targets remains limited. Observational studies consistently report inadequate energy and protein delivery after the acute phase due to feeding interruptions, gastrointestinal intolerance, and swallowing disorders. A multidisciplinary, protocol-driven approach emphasizing individualized nutritional support is therefore recommended. Future research should focus on defining phase-specific nutritional targets, identifying biomarkers of metabolic demand, and evaluating the impact of ICU and post-ICU nutrition on long-term functional outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42228011What 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.