MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409122314 · doi:10.1177/03000605251322358

Safety and efficacy of enteral nutrition during prone ventilation: A meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4409122314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pan Jianzhen, Mei Gu, Zhao Jianghong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Medical Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalParenteral nutritionEnteral administrationCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisMechanical ventilationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Prone ventilation improves lung function in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome by enhancing oxygenation; however, managing enteral nutrition during prone ventilation is challenging due to body position changes. Objective The objective of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of enteral nutrition during prone ventilation. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of enteral nutrition in the prone position in critically ill ventilated patients. Methods By searching databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and WanFang Data, the relevant literature was retrieved from their inception to 24 December 2024. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate article quality. Egger’s test was used to check for publication bias, and Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct the analyses. Results Among 81 publications, five studies with a total sample size of 319 were included in this study. Enteral nutrition in the prone position, compared with that in the supine position, was associated with a lower energy achievement rate (mean difference: −0.88; 95% confidence interval: −1.83 to 0.06; P < 0.00001), no significant difference in mortality (odds ratio: 1.11; 95% confidence interval: 0.65 to 1.88; P = 0.7), a greater incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (odds ratio: 2.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 3.96; P = 0.02), more frequent vomiting (odds ratio: 2.38; 95% confidence interval: 1.61 to 3.50; P < 0.0001), a greater gastric residual volume (odds ratio: 2.72; 95% confidence interval: 1.47 to 5.03; P = 0.001), and increased interruptions in enteral nutrition (odds ratio: 4.75; 95% confidence interval: 2.22 to 10.17; P < 0.0001). The Egger’s test suggested no significant publication bias in the meta-analysis of mortality, gastric residual volume, adequate enteral nutrition achievement, and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Conclusion A greater gastric residual volume, more frequent vomiting, and greater incidences of ventilator-associated pneumonia and enteral feeding interruptions are linked to enteral nutrition during prone ventilation. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the prone and supine positions. However, the prone position showed a slight trend toward reducing energy achievement rates, although this difference was not statistically significant. Trial registration number: PROSPERO CRD: 42023441409.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.339 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Medical ResearchSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207