MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775583004 · doi:10.1097/mco.0000000000000447

Intermittent versus continuous feeding in critically ill adults

2017· review· en· W2775583004 on OpenAlexaff
Jayshil J. Patel, Martin D. Rosenthal, Daren K. Heyland

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionGlycemicEnteral administrationCritically illIntensive care medicineBolus (digestion)Randomized controlled trialInsulinInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Early enteral nutrition is recommended in critically ill adult patients. The optimal method of administering enteral nutrition remains unknown. Continuous enteral nutrition administration in critically ill patients remains the most common practice worldwide; however, its practice has recently been called into question in favor of intermittent enteral nutrition administration, where volume is infused multiple times per day. This review will outline the key differences between continuous and intermittent enteral nutrition, describe the metabolic responses to continuous and intermittent enteral nutrition administration and outline recent studies comparing continuous with intermittent enteral nutrition administration on outcomes in critically ill adults. RECENT FINDINGS: In separate studies, healthy humans and critically ill patients receiving intermittent nutrition (infused over 3 h) had improved whole body protein balance from negative to positive. These studies did not have an isonitrogenous control group. A randomized controlled trial of intermittent bolus versus continuous enteral nutrition in healthy humans found that intermittent bolus feeding increased mesenteric arterial blood flow, increased insulin and peptide YY and reduced blood glucose concentration. A randomized controlled trial comparing intermittent bolus to continuous enteral nutrition in critically ill patients did not demonstrate clinically relevant differences in glycemic variability, insulin use or tube feeding volume or caloric intake between the two groups. SUMMARY: Studies in healthy humans suggest that intermittent nutrient administration, as opposed to continuous, improves whole body protein synthesis. Unfortunately, similarly designed studies are lacking for critically ill patients. Future studies evaluating the impact of intermittent versus continuous nutrition administration on critical care outcomes should take into account factors such as protein quantity, protein quality and delivery route (enteral and/or parenteral). Until further studies are conducted in critically ill patients, a recommendation for or against intermittent nutrition delivery cannot be made.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.253
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic CareSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207