↓ Skip to main content

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition and enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition for adults in the intensive care unit

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Enteral versus parenteral nutrition and enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition for adults in the intensive care unit
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012276.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon R Lewis, Oliver J Schofield-Robinson, Phil Alderson, Andrew F Smith

Abstract

Critically ill people are at increased risk of malnutrition. Acute and chronic illness, trauma and inflammation induce stress-related catabolism, and drug-induced adverse effects may reduce appetite or increase nausea and vomiting. In addition, patient management in the intensive care unit (ICU) may also interrupt feeding routines. Methods to deliver nutritional requirements include provision of enteral nutrition (EN), or parenteral nutrition (PN), or a combination of both (EN and PN). However, each method is problematic. This review aimed to determine the route of delivery that optimizes uptake of nutrition. To compare the effects of enteral versus parenteral methods of nutrition, and the effects of enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral methods of nutrition, among critically ill adults, in terms of mortality, number of ICU-free days up to day 28, and adverse events. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase on 3 October 2017. We searched clinical trials registries and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies comparing EN given to adults in the ICU versus PN or versus EN and PN. We included participants that were trauma, emergency, and postsurgical patients in the ICU. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We included 25 studies with 8816 participants; 23 studies were RCTs and two were quasi-randomized studies. All included participants were critically ill in the ICU with a wide range of diagnoses; mechanical ventilation status between study participants varied. We identified 11 studies awaiting classification for which we were unable to assess eligibility, and two ongoing studies.Seventeen studies compared EN versus PN, six compared EN versus EN and PN, two were multi-arm studies comparing EN versus PN versus EN and PN. Most studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately. Most studies reported no methods to blind personnel or outcome assessors to nutrition groups; one study used adequate methods to reduce risk of performance bias.Enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutritionWe found that one feeding route rather than the other (EN or PN) may make little or no difference to mortality in hospital (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.77; 361 participants; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), or mortality within 30 days (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.13; 3148 participants; 11 studies; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether one feeding route rather than the other reduces mortality within 90 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 2461 participants; 3 studies). One study reported mortality at one to four months and we did not combine this in the analysis; we reported this data as mortality within 180 days and it is uncertain whether EN or PN affects the number of deaths within 180 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.97; 46 participants).No studies reported number of ICU-free days up to day 28, and one study reported number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 and it is uncertain whether one feeding route rather than the other reduces the number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 because the certainty of the evidence is very low (mean difference, inverse variance, 0.00, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.97; 2388 participants).We combined data for adverse events reported by more than one study. It is uncertain whether EN or PN affects aspiration because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.03; 2437 participants; 2 studies), and we found that one feeding route rather than the other may make little or no difference to pneumonia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 415 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We found that EN may reduce sepsis (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 361 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain whether PN reduces vomiting because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.16; 2525 participants; 3 studies).Enteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition and parenteral nutritionWe found that one feeding regimen rather than another (EN or combined EN or PN) may make little or no difference to mortality in hospital (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; 5111 participants; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and at 90 days (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.18; 4760 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether combined EN and PN leads to fewer deaths at 30 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.54; 409 participants; 3 studies). It is uncertain whether one feeding regimen rather than another reduces mortality within 180 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.55; 120 participants; 1 study).No studies reported number of ICU-free days or ventilator-free days up to day 28. It is uncertain whether either feeding method reduces pneumonia because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.15; 205 participants; 2 studies). No studies reported aspiration, sepsis, or vomiting. We found insufficient evidence to determine whether EN is better or worse than PN, or than combined EN and PN for mortality in hospital, at 90 days and at 180 days, and on the number of ventilator-free days and adverse events. We found fewer deaths at 30 days when studies gave combined EN and PN, and reduced sepsis for EN rather than PN. We found no studies that reported number of ICU-free days up to day 28. Certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is either low or very low. The 11 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 25%
Unspecified 19 19%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 25 25%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 39%
Unspecified 24 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 17%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 1 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#548,160
of 13,645,220 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,661
of 10,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,085
of 270,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,645,220 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 270,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.