Comparison of Gastrointestinal Tolerance to Two Enteral Feeding Protocols in Critically III Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare gastrointestinal tolerance to two enteral feeding protocols in critically ill patients. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial, that involved 96 consecutive patients expected to stay in the intensive care unit for > or =3 days and who had no contraindications to enteral feeding. The patients were randomized to either the current protocol (group I; gastric residual volume threshold, 150 mL, optional prokinetic) or proposed feeding protocol (group II; gastric residual volume threshold 250 mL, mandatory prokinetic). Gastrointestinal intolerance was recorded as episodes of high gastric residual volume, emesis, or diarrhea. The time to reach the goal rate of feeding and the percentage of nutritional requirements received during the study period were also recorded. RESULTS: Nineteen of 36 patients (19/36 = 0.53) in group I had one or more episodes of high gastric residual volume, compared with 10 of 44 patients (10/44 = 0.23) in group II (p < .005). There was no statistical difference between the two protocols with regards to emesis, diarrhea, or the total episodes of intolerance. The patients in group II reached their goal rates on average in 15 hours and received 76% of their nutritional requirements, compared with 22 hours and 70% in group I; however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of enteral feeding intolerance was reduced by using a gastric residual volume of 250 mL along with the mandatory use of prokinetics. The study showed a trend of improved enteral nutrition provision and reduced the time to reach the goal rate in group II. These improvements support the adoption of the proposed feeding protocol for critically ill patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".