-
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jan 2016In cancer patients, weight loss is an ominous sign suggesting disease progression and shortened survival time. As a result, providing nutrition support for cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In cancer patients, weight loss is an ominous sign suggesting disease progression and shortened survival time. As a result, providing nutrition support for cancer patients has been proposed as a logical approach for improving clinical outcomes. Nutrition support can be given to patients through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The purpose of the review was to compare the outcomes of PN and EN in cancer patients.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if over half of the patient population had cancer and reported on any of the following endpoints: the percentage of patients that experienced no infection, nutrition support complications, major complications or mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager Version 5.3 were calculated. Primary endpoints were stratified according to type of EN for subgroup analysis, grouping studies into either tube feeding (TF) or standard care (SC). Additionally, another subgroup analysis was conducted comparing studies with protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) patients and studies without PEM patients.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 674 articles of which 36 were included for the meta-analysis. There were no difference in the endpoints between the two study interventions except that PN resulted in more infection when compared with EN (RR =1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18; P=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Other than increased incidence of infection, PN has not resulted in prolonging the survival, increasing nutrition support complications, or major complications when compared with EN in cancer patients.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Infection Control; Neoplasms; Nutritional Support; Parenteral Nutrition; Protein-Energy Malnutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26841813
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2224-5820.2016.01.01 -
Critical Care (London, England) Apr 2016Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as the preferred route for early nutrition therapy in critically ill adults over parenteral nutrition (PN). A recent large... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as the preferred route for early nutrition therapy in critically ill adults over parenteral nutrition (PN). A recent large randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no outcome differences between the two routes. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of the route of nutrition (EN versus PN) on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients.
METHODS
An electronic search from 1980 to 2016 was performed identifying relevant RCTs. Individual trial data were abstracted and methodological quality of included trials scored independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was overall mortality and secondary outcomes included infectious complications, length of stay (LOS) and mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the treatment effect by dissimilar caloric intakes, year of publication and trial methodology. We performed a test of asymmetry to assess for the presence of publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 18 RCTs studying 3347 patients met inclusion criteria. Median methodological score was 7 (range, 2-12). No effect on overall mortality was found (1.04, 95 % CI 0.82, 1.33, P = 0.75, heterogeneity I(2) = 11 %). EN compared to PN was associated with a significant reduction in infectious complications (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.48, 0.87, P = 0.004, I(2) = 47 %). This was more pronounced in the subgroup of RCTs where the PN group received significantly more calories (RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.37, 0.82, P = 0.003, I(2) = 0 %), while no effect was seen in trials where EN and PN groups had a similar caloric intake (RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.80, 1.10, P = 0.44, I(2) = 0 %; test for subgroup differences, P = 0.003). Year of publication and methodological quality did not influence these findings; however, a publication bias may be present as the test of asymmetry was significant (P = 0.003). EN was associated with significant reduction in ICU LOS (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.80, 95 % CI -1.23, -0.37, P = 0.0003, I(2) = 0 %) while no significant differences in hospital LOS and mechanical ventilation were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
In critically ill patients, the use of EN as compared to PN has no effect on overall mortality but decreases infectious complications and ICU LOS. This may be explained by the benefit of reduced macronutrient intake rather than the enteral route itself.
Topics: Adult; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Nutritional Status; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27129307
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1298-1 -
JPEN. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral... 2014Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a high-alert medication available for patient care within a complex clinical process. Beyond application of best practice recommendations to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a high-alert medication available for patient care within a complex clinical process. Beyond application of best practice recommendations to guide safe use and optimize clinical outcome, several issues are better addressed through evidence-based policies, procedures, and practices. This document provides evidence-based guidance for clinical practices involving PN prescribing, order review, and preparation.
METHOD
A systematic review of the best available evidence was used by an expert work group to answer a series of questions about PN prescribing, order review, compounding, labeling, and dispensing. Concepts from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) format were applied as appropriate. The specific clinical guideline recommendations were developed using consensus prior to review and approval by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of Directors. The following questions were addressed: (1) Does education of prescribers improve PN ordering? (2) What is the maximum safe osmolarity of PN admixtures intended for peripheral vein administration? (3) What are the appropriate calcium intake and calcium-phosphate ratios in PN for optimal neonatal bone mineralization? (4) What are the clinical advantages or disadvantages of commercially available premade ("premixed") multichambered PN formulations compared with traditional/customized PN formulations? (5) What are the clinical (infection, catheter occlusion) advantages or disadvantages of 2-in-1 compared with 3-in-1 PN admixtures? (6) What macronutrient dosing limits are expected to provide for the most stable 3-in-1 admixtures? (7) What are the most appropriate recommendations for optimizing calcium (gluconate) and (Na- or K-) phosphate compatibility in PN admixtures? (8) What micronutrient contamination is present in parenteral stock solutions currently used to compound PN admixtures? (9) Is it safe to use the PN admixture as a vehicle for non-nutrient medication delivery? (10) Should heparin be included in the PN admixture to reduce the risk of central vein thrombosis? (11) What methods of repackaging intravenous fat emulsion (IVFE) into smaller patient-specific volumes are safe? (12) What beyond-use date should be used for (a) IVFE dispensed for separate infusion in the original container and (b) repackaged IVFE?
Topics: Drug Compounding; Drug Prescriptions; Humans; Infusions, Parenteral; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 24531708
DOI: 10.1177/0148607114521833 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Oct 2021Nutritional support is very important in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis, this study aimed to investigate the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nutritional support is very important in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis, this study aimed to investigate the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and enteral nutrition (TEN) on the prognosis of patients with acute pancreatitis.
METHODS
The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid were searched using the keywords acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition to obtain the reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published after 2000. After screening the articles according to the inclusion criteria, risk of bias of the included literatures was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. The software RevMan 5.3.5 was used for analysis and the creation of a forest plot and funnel plot.
RESULTS
A total of 488 literatures were preliminarily searched in this study, from which 10 articles were included into the final quantitative analysis, involving a total of 699 participants. A total of 6 literatures (n=329 participants) reported the infection rate indicators. The obtained statistic value [odds ratio (OR) =0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10 to 0.62] showed TEN had less infection rate that TPN (P=0.003). A total of 8 studies (654 participants) reported the incidence rate indicators of multiple organ failure rate indicator, the obtained statistic value (OR =0.50, 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.08) showed no statistical difference between TEN and TPN (P>0.05). A total of 7 studies (550 participants) reported the mortality indicators. The obtained statistic value (OR =0.59, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.94) showed TEN had less mortality than TPN (P=0.03). A total of 3 studies reported the length of hospital stay indicators. The obtained statistic value [mean difference (MD) -4.18, 95% CI: -5.07 to -3.30] showed the length of hospital stay for TEN was shorter that TPN (P<0.001).
DISCUSSION
Compared with TPN, TEN can reduce the incidence of infection, reduce the development of multiple organ failure, reduce mortality, and shorten the length of hospital stay in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). However, attention should be paid to prevent the occurrence of complications during the implementation of nutritional intervention.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Pancreatitis; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Prognosis
PubMed: 34763439
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2469 -
Nutrients Sep 2020Enteral nutrition (EN) is considered the first feeding route for critically ill patients. However, adverse effects such as gastrointestinal complications limit its... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Effect of Supplemental Parenteral Nutrition Versus Enteral Nutrition Alone on Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Enteral nutrition (EN) is considered the first feeding route for critically ill patients. However, adverse effects such as gastrointestinal complications limit its optimal provision, leading to inadequate energy and protein intake. We compared the clinical outcomes of supplemental parenteral nutrition added to EN (SPN + EN) and EN alone in critically ill adults. Electronic databases restricted to full-text randomized controlled trials available in the English language and published from January 1990 to January 2019 were searched. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Jadad scale, and the meta-analysis was conducted using the MedCalc software. A total of five studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to EN alone, SPN + EN decreased the risk of nosocomial infections (relative risk (RR) = 0.733, = 0.032) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR = 0.569, = 0.030). No significant differences were observed between SPN + EN and EN in the length of hospital stay, hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. In conclusion, when enteral feeding fails to fulfill the energy requirements in critically ill adult patients, SPN may be beneficial as it helps in decreasing nosocomial infections and ICU mortality, in addition to increasing energy and protein intakes with no negative effects on other clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Combined Modality Therapy; Critical Care Outcomes; Critical Illness; Cross Infection; Dietary Supplements; Enteral Nutrition; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Male; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32998412
DOI: 10.3390/nu12102968 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Nov 2022Enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) is an abnormal communication between the gastrointestinal tract and skin, with a myriad of etiologies and therapeutic options. Management... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) is an abnormal communication between the gastrointestinal tract and skin, with a myriad of etiologies and therapeutic options. Management is influenced by etiology and specifics of the ECF, and patient-related factors. The aim of this study was to assess overall success, recurrence, and mortality rates of treatment for ECF.
MATERIALS
A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed through October 2021 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Case reports, reviews, animal studies, studies not reporting outcomes, had no available English text, included patients < 16 years old or those assessing other abdominocutaneous/internal fistulas were excluded.
RESULTS
Fifty-three studies, between 1975 and 2020, incorporating 3078 patients were included. Patient age ranged between 16 and 87 years with a male:female ratio of 1.14:1. ECF developed postoperatively in 89.4%. Other common etiologies were inflammatory bowel disease, trauma, malignancy, and radiation. At least 28% of patients had complex fistulae (reported in 18 studies). Most common fistula site was small bowel. In 34 publications, 62.4% (n = 1371) patients received parenteral nutrition. In 45 publications, 72.5% underwent surgery to treat the fistula. Meta-analysis revealed an 89% healing rate; recurrence rate after initial successful treatment was 11.1%, and mortality rate was 8.5%. In a subgroup of patients who underwent combined ECF takedown and abdominal wall reconstructions (n = 315), 78% achieved fascial closure, mesh was used in 72%, hernia, and fistula recurrence rates were 19.7% and 7.6%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment of ECF must be individualized according to specific etiology and location of the fistula and the patient's associated conditions.
Topics: Female; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Male; Parenteral Nutrition; Retrospective Studies; Wound Healing
PubMed: 35915291
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-022-02656-3 -
JPEN. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral... Jan 2017The management of patients with enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) requires an interdisciplinary approach and poses a significant challenge to physicians, wound/stoma care... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The management of patients with enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) requires an interdisciplinary approach and poses a significant challenge to physicians, wound/stoma care specialists, dietitians, pharmacists, and other nutrition clinicians. Guidelines for optimizing nutrition status in these patients are often vague, based on limited and dated clinical studies, and typically rely on individual institutional or clinician experience. Specific nutrient requirements, appropriate route of feeding, role of immune-enhancing formulas, and use of somatostatin analogues in the management of patients with ECF are not well defined. The purpose of this clinical guideline is to develop recommendations for the nutrition care of adult patients with ECF.
METHODS
A systematic review of the best available evidence to answer a series of questions regarding clinical management of adults with ECF was undertaken and evaluated using concepts adopted from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. An anonymous consensus process was used to develop the clinical guideline recommendations prior to peer review and approval by the ASPEN Board of Directors and by FELANPE.
QUESTIONS
In adult patients with enterocutaneous fistula: (1) What factors best describe nutrition status? (2) What is the preferred route of nutrition therapy (oral diet, enteral nutrition, or parenteral nutrition)? (3) What protein and energy intake provide best clinical outcomes? (4) Is fistuloclysis associated with better outcomes than standard care? (5) Are immune-enhancing formulas associated with better outcomes than standard formulas? (6) Does the use of somatostatin or somatostatin analogue provide better outcomes than standard medical therapy? (7) When is home parenteral nutrition support indicated?
Topics: Consensus; Databases, Factual; Disease Management; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Nutritional Requirements; Observational Studies as Topic; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition Solutions; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27913762
DOI: 10.1177/0148607116680792 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Apr 2019This position paper summarizes theoretical and practical aspects of the monitoring of artificial nutrition and metabolism in critically ill patients, thereby completing...
BACKGROUND & AIMS
This position paper summarizes theoretical and practical aspects of the monitoring of artificial nutrition and metabolism in critically ill patients, thereby completing ESPEN guidelines on intensive care unit (ICU) nutrition.
METHODS
Available literature and personal clinical experience on monitoring of nutrition and metabolism was systematically reviewed by the ESPEN group for ICU nutrition guidelines.
RESULTS
We did not identify any studies comparing outcomes with monitoring versus not monitoring nutrition therapy. The potential for abnormal values to be associated with harm was clearly recognized. The necessity to create locally adapted standard operating procedures (SOPs) for follow up of enteral and parenteral nutrition is emphasised. Clinical observations, laboratory parameters (including blood glucose, electrolytes, triglycerides, liver tests), and monitoring of energy expenditure and body composition are addressed, focusing on prevention, and early detection of nutrition-related complications.
CONCLUSION
Understanding and defining risks and developing local SOPs are critical to reduce specific risks.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Body Composition; Critical Care; Electrolytes; Energy Metabolism; Europe; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Liver Function Tests; Malnutrition; Nutrition Assessment; Nutritional Status; Nutritional Support; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Triglycerides
PubMed: 30077342
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.07.009 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Apr 2017The ESPEN guideline presents a multidisciplinary focus on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The ESPEN guideline presents a multidisciplinary focus on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
METHODOLOGY
The guideline is based on extensive systematic review of the literature, but relies on expert opinion when objective data were lacking or inconclusive. The conclusions and 64 recommendations have been subject to full peer review and a Delphi process in which uniformly positive responses (agree or strongly agree) were required.
RESULTS
IBD is increasingly common and potential dietary factors in its aetiology are briefly reviewed. Malnutrition is highly prevalent in IBD - especially in Crohn's disease. Increased energy and protein requirements are observed in some patients. The management of malnutrition in IBD is considered within the general context of support for malnourished patients. Treatment of iron deficiency (parenterally if necessary) is strongly recommended. Routine provision of a special diet in IBD is not however supported. Parenteral nutrition is indicated only when enteral nutrition has failed or is impossible. The recommended perioperative management of patients with IBD undergoing surgery accords with general ESPEN guidance for patients having abdominal surgery. Probiotics may be helpful in UC but not Crohn's disease. Primary therapy using nutrition to treat IBD is not supported in ulcerative colitis, but is moderately well supported in Crohn's disease, especially in children where the adverse consequences of steroid therapy are proportionally greater. However, exclusion diets are generally not recommended and there is little evidence to support any particular formula feed when nutritional regimens are constructed.
CONCLUSIONS
Available objective data to guide nutritional support and primary nutritional therapy in IBD are presented as 64 recommendations, of which 9 are very strong recommendations (grade A), 22 are strong recommendations (grade B) and 12 are based only on sparse evidence (grade 0); 21 recommendations are good practice points (GPP).
Topics: Breast Feeding; Diet; Dietary Fats; Dietary Fiber; Dietary Proteins; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Malnutrition; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Micronutrients; Nutritional Requirements; Nutritional Support; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28131521
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.12.027 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Critically ill people are at increased risk of malnutrition. Acute and chronic illness, trauma and inflammation induce stress-related catabolism, and drug-induced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
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.
OBJECTIVES
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.
SEARCH METHODS
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.
SELECTION CRITERIA
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.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
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.
Topics: Adult; Cause of Death; Combined Modality Therapy; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Malnutrition; Parenteral Nutrition; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Vomiting
PubMed: 29883514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012276.pub2