MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409148260 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaf042

Association Between Energy Delivery and Outcomes in Adult Critically Ill Patients Diagnosed With or At Risk of Malnutrition: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis

2025· review· en· W4409148260 on OpenAlexaff
Shu Han Chong, Yingxiao Huang, Mei Shan Heng, Elizabeth Gar Mit Chong, Cassandra Duan Qi Lim, Kok Wah Wong, Hiu Nam Chan, Daren K. Heyland, Christian Stoppe, Charlene Compher, Zheng‐Yii Lee, Alvin Wong, Charles Chin Han Lew

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisCritically illMedicineMalnutritionIntensive care medicineMEDLINEPediatricsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: There is a common belief that adult critically ill patients diagnosed with or at risk of malnutrition would benefit from higher energy delivery. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between energy delivery and mortality in adult critically ill patients diagnosed with or at risk of malnutrition. DATA SOURCES: Databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to November 20, 2023. DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that (1) included critically ill patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with or at risk of malnutrition using validated tools following intensive care unit (ICU) admission, (2) had at least 20% energy difference between intervention and comparison groups, and (3) reported mortality outcomes were included. The random-effects model was used to pool the data. DATA ANALYSIS: Two RCTs (4681 at-risk patients) and 5 observational studies (1587 at-risk patients [including 389 high-risk patients]) were included. The pooled mean energy delivered during the first 7-14 days of ICU admission in higher vs lower energy groups was 25.6 ± 5.9 vs 9.7 ± 5.6 kcal/kg per day (P = .004) in RCTs and 21.0 ± 5.2 vs 13.3 ± 5.3 kcal/kg per day (P < .001) in observational studies. No mortality difference was found between higher vs lower energy groups in at-risk patients (risk ratio: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.17; P = .94) in RCTs and high-risk patients (adjusted odds ratio: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.43, 4.32; P = .59) in observational studies. Trial sequential analysis was performed and 31 232 patients were required to show a potential treatment effect. CONCLUSION: These data do not support the prevailing belief that higher energy delivery improves survival in adult critically ill patients diagnosed with or at risk of malnutrition. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021274378.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207