Bedside adherence to clinical practice guidelines for enteral nutrition in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim was to measure the amount of nutrients required, prescribed and actually administered in critically ill patients. Secondary aims were to assess adherence to clinical practice guidelines, and investigate factors leading to non-adherence. METHODS: Observational, multicenter, prospective study, including 203 patients in a total of 19 intensive care units in France. The prescribed calorie supply was compared with the theoretical minimal required calorie intake (25 Kcal/Kg/day) and with the supply actually delivered to the patient to calculate the ratio of calories prescribed/required and the ratio of calories delivered/prescribed. Clinical factors suspected to influence enteral nutrition were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The median ratio of prescribed/required calories per day was 43 [37-54] at day 1 and increased until day 7. From day 4 until the end of the study, the median ratio was > 80%. The median ratio of delivered/prescribed per day was > 80% for all 7 days from the start of enteral nutrition. Among the variables tested (hospital type, use of a local nutrition protocol, sedation, vasoactive drugs, number of interruptions of enteral nutrition and measurement of gastric residual volume), only measurement of residual volume was significant by univariate analysis. This was confirmed by multivariate analysis, where gastric residual volume measurement was the only variable independently associated with the ratio of delivered/prescribed calories (OR = 1.38; 95%CI, 1.12-2.10, p = .024). CONCLUSIONS: The translation of clinical research and recommendations for enteral nutrition into routine bedside practice in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation was satisfactory, but could probably be improved with a multidisciplinary approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".