SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Effects of higher versus lower protein intake in critically ill patients: a systematic review and 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal protein dose for critically ill patients remains uncertain, and emerging evidence suggests that the effects of higher protein intake may differ across clinically relevant subgroups. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating protein delivery in critical illness adults (up to July 2026). Higher and lower protein groups were defined according to each trial's original allocation. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, Intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), muscle outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), biochemical outcomes, and adverse events. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) was performed to control for random error, and the certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE framework. Results: Thirty three RCTs involving 11,622 participants were included. No significant differences were observed between higher and lower protein groups for all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08), MV duration (MD -0.48, 95% CI -1.08 to 0.13), or ICU LOS (MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.51), with TSA confirming these null findings. Some muscle metrics favored the higher protein group; however, there was a trend towards poorer HRQoL (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.00). The higher protein group showed improved nitrogen balance (MD 5.58, 95% CI 2.89 to 8.27) and higher serum albumin levels (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.29), but increased urea (MD 2.06, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.64) and blood urea nitrogen concentrations (MD 2.94, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.56). Sensitivity analyses restricted to 27 isocaloric-design trials yielded consistent results. Subgroup analyses revealed that higher protein intake was linked to increased mortality in patients with acute kidney injury (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.87); however, higher protein intake combined with rehabilitation interventions was associated with reduced mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93), shorter MV duration (MD -1.45, 95% CI -2.61 to -0.29), and beneficial muscle effects. Conclusion: Higher protein intake was not associated with better clinical outcomes. While it may increase mortality in patients with AKI, combining it with physical rehabilitation yields survival and clinical benefits, warranting confirmation in future factorial RCTs. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251109618, identifier [CRD420251109618].
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.