Observational studyBMJ open2026
Evaluation of guideline adherence in enteral nutrition practices among ICU patients: a point prevalence study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMalnutrition is a significant problem in critically ill patients and is associated with higher mortality, morbidity and healthcare costs. Enteral nutrition (EN), being more physiological than parenteral nutrition, helps reduce complications. This study evaluated how well EN practices in Turkish intensive care units (ICUs) align with current clinical nutrition guidelines. DESIGN AND
settingThis multicentre, prospective, point-prevalence study was carried out in six ICUs in Türkiye.
participantsAdult patients (≥18 years) who had stayed in the ICU for at least 48 hours and had received EN for a minimum of 24 hours on either of the two prespecified point-prevalence dates (30 July and 30 August 2025) were eligible. All patients meeting these criteria were included.
interventionsNo intervention was performed. Existing EN practices were evaluated against guideline-based recommendations. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: EN practices were assessed according to initiation time, type of EN tube, method of EN administration, rate of achieving calorie and protein target, management of conditions requiring EN interruption and use of prokinetic agents. Guideline adherence was evaluated using a protocol based on European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) and Turkish Society of Clinical Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition (KEPAN) recommendations.
results98 patients were included; 60 patients (61.2%) were male, and the median age was 72 (IQR 59-79) years. EN was initiated within 48 hours in 72 patients (73.5%), while 13 (13.3%) delays lacked clinical justification. The median percentage of administered energy and protein compared with the targets was 87% (IQR 69.6%-100%) and 82% (IQR 64.9%-100%), respectively. However, only 27 patients (27.6%) achieved 100% of both energy and protein requirements. Failure to achieve nutritional targets was significantly associated with a higher number of comorbidities (p=0.007), higher body mass index (p=0.017) and renal dysfunction (p=0.041). EN continued despite contraindications in 14 patients (14.3%), who had significantly higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (NUTRIC scores (all p<0.05).
conclusionsAmong patients receiving EN, overall adherence to guideline recommendations was high. However, improvements are needed in achieving nutritional targets and optimising prokinetic use.
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.