Combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition in the acute phase of critical illness: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uncertainty remains about the best route and timing of medical nutrition therapy in the acute phase of critical illness. Early combined enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) may represent an attractive option to achieve recommended energy and protein goals in select patient groups. This meta-analysis aims to update and summarize the current evidence. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) targeting the effect of EN alone vs a combination of EN with PN in the acute phase of critical illness in adult patients. Assessed outcomes include mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), ventilation days, infectious complications, physical recovery, and quality-of-life outcomes. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs with 5543 patients were included. Treatment with a combination of EN with PN led to increased delivery of macronutrients. No statistically significant effect of a combination of EN with PN vs EN alone on any of the parameters was observed: mortality (risk ratio = 1.0; 95% CI, 0.79-1.28; P = .99), hospital LOS (mean difference, -1.44; CI, -5.59 to 2.71; P = .50), ICU LOS, and ventilation days. Trends toward improved physical outcomes were observed in two of four trials. CONCLUSION: A combination of EN with PN improved nutrition intake in the acute phase of critical illness in adults and was not inferior regarding the patients' outcomes. Large, adequately designed trials in select patient groups are needed to answer the question of whether this nutrition strategy has a clinically relevant treatment effect.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".