↓ Skip to main content

Timing of (supplemental) parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Timing of (supplemental) parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a systematic review
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13613-014-0031-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rianne BC Bost, Dave HT Tjan, Arthur RH van Zanten

Abstract

Supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) is used in a step-up approach when full enteral support is contraindicated or fails to reach caloric targets. Recent nutrition guidelines present divergent advices regarding timing of SPN in critically ill patients ranging from early SPN (<48 h after admission; EPN) to postponing initiation of SPN until day 8 after Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission (LPN). This systematic review summarizes results of prospective studies among adult ICU patients addressing the best timing of (supplemental) parenteral nutrition (S)PN. A structured PubMed search was conducted to identify eligible articles. Articles were screened and selected using predetermined criteria and appraised for relevance and validity. After critical appraisal, four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two prospective observational studies remained. One RCT found a higher percentage of alive discharge from the ICU at day 8 in the LPN group compared to EPN group (p = 0.007) but no differences in ICU and in-hospital mortality. None of the other RCTs found differences in ICU or in-hospital mortality rates. Contradicting or divergent results on other secondary outcomes were found for ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, infection rates, nutrition targets, duration of mechanical ventilation, glucose control, duration of renal replacement therapy, muscle wasting and fat loss. Although the heterogeneity in quality and design of relevant studies precludes firm conclusions, it is reasonable to assume that in adult critically ill patients, there are no clinically relevant benefits of EPN compared with LPN with respect to morbidity or mortality end points, when full enteral support is contraindicated or fails to reach caloric targets. However, considering that infectious morbidity and resolution of organ failure may be negatively affected through mechanisms not yet clearly understood and acquisition costs of parenteral nutrition are higher, the early administration of parenteral nutrition cannot be recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 14 15%
Student > Master 13 14%
Researcher 11 12%
Other 10 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 26 27%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Unspecified 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,538,378
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#297
of 1,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,829
of 253,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 253,584 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.