↓ Skip to main content

Prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support for critically-ill adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support for critically-ill adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007867.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario I Perman, Agustín Ciapponi, Juan VA Franco, Cecilia Loudet, Adriana Crivelli, Virginia Garrote, Gastón Perman

Abstract

There are controversies about the amount of calories and the type of nutritional support that should be given to critically-ill people. Several authors advocate the potential benefits of hypocaloric nutrition support, but the evidence is inconclusive. To assess the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support in comparison with standard nutrition support for critically-ill adults SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS (from inception to 20 June 2017) with a specific strategy for each database. We also assessed three websites, conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted leaders in the field and the pharmaceutical industry for undetected/unpublished studies. There was no restriction by date, language or publication status. We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing hypocaloric nutrition support to normo- or hypercaloric nutrition support or no nutrition support (e.g. fasting) in adults hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We meta-analysed data for comparisons in which clinical heterogeneity was low. We conducted prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and post hoc analyses, including meta-regression. Our primary outcomes were: mortality (death occurred during the ICU and hospital stay, or 28- to 30-day all-cause mortality); length of stay (days stayed in the ICU and in the hospital); and Infectious complications. Secondary outcomes included: length of mechanical ventilation. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. We identified 15 trials, with a total of 3129 ICU participants from university-associated hospitals in the USA, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Greece, Germany and Iran. There are two ongoing studies. Participants suffered from medical and surgical conditions, with a variety of inclusion criteria. Four studies used parenteral nutrition and nine studies used only enteral nutrition; it was unclear whether the remaining two used parenteral nutrition. Most of them could not achieve the proposed caloric targets, resulting in small differences in the administered calories between intervention and control groups. Most studies were funded by the US government or non-governmental associations, but three studies received funding from industry. Five studies did not specify their funding sources.The included studies suffered from important clinical and statistical heterogeneity. This heterogeneity did not allow us to report pooled estimates of the primary and secondary outcomes, so we have described them narratively.When comparing hypocaloric nutrition support with a control nutrition support, for hospital mortality (9 studies, 1775 participants), the risk ratios ranged from 0.23 to 5.54; for ICU mortality (4 studies, 1291 participants) the risk ratios ranged from 0.81 to 5.54, and for mortality at 30 days (7 studies, 2611 participants) the risk ratios ranged from 0.79 to 3.00. Most of these estimates included the null value. The quality of the evidence was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Participants who received hypocaloric nutrition support compared to control nutrition support had a range of mean hospital lengths of stay of 15.70 days lower to 10.70 days higher (10 studies, 1677 participants), a range of mean ICU lengths of stay 11.00 days lower to 5.40 days higher (11 studies, 2942 participants) and a range of mean lengths of mechanical ventilation of 13.20 days lower to 8.36 days higher (12 studies, 3000 participants). The quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias in most studies, inconsistency and imprecision.The risk ratios for infectious complications (10 studies, 2804 participants) of each individual study ranged from 0.54 to 2.54. The quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecisionWe were not able to explain the causes of the observed heterogeneity using subgroup and sensitivity analyses or meta-regression. The included studies had substantial clinical heterogeneity. We found very low-quality evidence about the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support on mortality in hospital, in the ICU and at 30 days, as well as in length of hospital and ICU stay, infectious complications and the length of mechanical ventilation. For these outcomes there is uncertainty about the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition, since the range of estimates includes both appreciable benefits and harms.Given these limitations, results must be interpreted with caution in the clinical field, considering the unclear balance of the risks and harms of this intervention. Future research addressing the clinical heterogeneity of participants and interventions, study limitations and sample size could clarify the effects of this intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 14 27%
Student > Master 10 20%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Other 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 37%
Unspecified 13 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,623,809
of 13,187,031 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,341
of 10,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,966
of 270,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#96
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,187,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.