Impact of Enteral Feeding Protocols on Enteral Nutrition Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of enteral feeding protocols on key indicators of enteral nutrition in the critical care setting. METHODS: International, prospective, observational, cohort studies conducted in 2007 and 2008 in 269 intensive care units (ICUs) in 28 countries were combined for the purposes of this analysis. The study included 5497 consecutively enrolled, mechanically ventilated, adult patients who stayed in the ICU for at least 3 days. Sites recorded the presence or absence of a feeding protocol operational in their ICU. They provided selected nutritional data on enrolled patients from ICU admission to ICU discharge for a maximum of 12 days. Sites that used a feeding protocol were compared with those that did not. RESULTS: On average, protocolized sites used more enteral nutrition (EN) alone (70.4% of patients vs 63.6%, P = .0036), started EN earlier (41.2 hours from admission to ICU vs 57.1, P = .0003), and used more motility agents in patients with high gastric residual volumes (64.3% of patients vs 49.0%, P = .0028) compared with sites that did not use a feeding protocol. Overall nutritional adequacy (61.2% of patients' caloric requirements vs 51.7%, P = .0003) and adequacy from EN were higher in protocolized sites compared with nonprotocolized sites (45.4% of requirements vs 34.7%, P < .0001). EN adequacy remained significantly higher after adjustment for pertinent patient and ICU level baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an enteral feeding protocol is associated with significant improvements in nutrition practice compared with sites that do not use such a protocol.
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 | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".