Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2026
Body composition-guided protein dosing in critically ill patients: a before-and-after study (PROGRESS-ICU).
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07312708 (LEan Body Mass Development in CriTically Ill Patients, Obtained by bioelectRical impEdance Analysis), which is not on this 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.
LEan Body Mass Development in CriTically Ill Patients, Obtained by bioelectRical impEdance Analysis: a Combined Retrospective and Prospective Observational Cohort Study
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare whether fat-free mass (FFM)-adjusted protein dosing is associated with different clinical and metabolic outcomes compared with total body weight (TBW)-based dosing in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).
methodsAdult ICU patients (April 2020-October 2025) with serial bioelectrical impedance analysis were included in the PROGRESS-ICU observational cohort study. Patients received either TBW-based protein dosing (1.5 g/kg/day; April 2020-June 2023) or FFM-based dosing after protocol revision (1.85 g/kg/day dry FFM, corrected for fluid overload; July 2023 onward). The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) duration, and longitudinal changes in FFM and urea-to-creatinine ratio (UCR). Survival was analysed using multivariable Cox regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting; longitudinal outcomes were assessed using mixed-effects models.
resultsAmong 620 patients (310 per cohort), median age was 69 years, and ~ 60% were male. Notable baseline differences included a higher proportion of COVID-19 admissions in the TBW cohort (40% vs. 1%), which may have influenced outcomes. Ninety-day mortality did not differ significantly between groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.09). FFM-based dosing was associated with shorter ICU stay (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91) and fewer IMV days (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96); hospital length of stay was similar (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67-1.10). TBW-based dosing was associated with higher UCR trajectories and greater FFM loss. These associations should be interpreted cautiously due to the observational design, substantial baseline imbalances, and potential residual confounding.
conclusionsIn this observational before-after study, FFM-based protein dosing was not associated with differences in mortality compared with TBW-based dosing. Associations with ICU stay, IMV duration, and metabolic markers were observed but may reflect residual confounding and temporal changes. The study was underpowered to detect modest differences in mortality, and confidence intervals include the possibility of clinically relevant benefit or harm. These findings are exploratory and require confirmation in adequately powered randomised controlled trials.
trial registrationThe study was approved by the local ethics committee (protocol number 2403-017; 11 April 2024) and registered prior to data analysis on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07312708; 5 December 2025), the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3SU49 ; 4 December 2025), and the Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (NL-010953; 26 October 2025). Patients admitted before ethics approval were retrospectively included under a waiver of informed consent, and from April 2024 an opt-out consent procedure was implemented for all new admissions. Data were collected as part of routine clinical care. The study protocol, including prespecified analyses, was finalised and registered before the research team accessed the data.
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.