Gastrointestinal promotility drugs in the critical care setting: A systematic review of the evidence*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Gastrointestinal promotility agents may improve tolerance to enteral nutrition, reduce gastroesophageal reflux and pulmonary aspiration, and therefore have the potential to improve outcomes of critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and critically appraise studies of promotility agents in the critical care setting. DATA SOURCES: Computerized bibliographic search of published research (1980-2001), citation review of relevant articles, and contact with primary investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of critically ill adult patients that evaluated the effect of promotility agents on measures of gastrointestinal motility were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant methods and outcome data were abstracted in duplicate by independent investigators. DATA SYNTHESIS: We reviewed 60 citations; 18 articles met the inclusion criteria (six studies of feeding tube placement, 11 studies evaluating gastrointestinal function, and one study of clinical outcomes). The heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes measured precluded a quantitative synthesis of the data. Although there are conflicting studies, the larger and more methodologically robust studies suggest that metoclopramide has no effect on feeding tube placement. Erythromycin has been shown to increase success rates with small-bowel tube placement in two studies. Eight of ten studies evaluating the effect of cisapride, metoclopramide, or erythromycin on measures of gastrointestinal transit demonstrated positive effects; the two studies that did not were relatively small (n = 27 and 10) and likely had inadequate power to detect a difference in treatment effect. No study demonstrated a positive effect on clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: As a class of drugs, promotility agents appear to have a beneficial effect on gastrointestinal motility in critically ill patients. A one-time dose of erythromycin may facilitate small-bowel feeding tube insertion. Administration of metoclopramide appears to increase physiologic indexes of gastrointestinal transit and feeding tolerance. Concerns about safety and lack of effect on clinically important outcomes preclude strong treatment recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".