Cochrane · systematic review · CD012276
Enteral versus parenteral nutrition and enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition for adults in the intensive care unit
Lewis, SR, Schofield‐Robinson, OJ, Alderson, P, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Emergency and Critical CareAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
6
Included studies
NR
No studies 6 · 42.9%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 28.6%Low 4 · 28.6%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for adults in the intensive care unit
Population: critically ill adults admitted to the ICU for trauma, emergency, or surgical care; population excluded people with acute pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality Enteral vs parenteral nutrition | RR 1.19 [0.8, 1.77] | 6 studies · 361 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Number of ICU‐free days up to day 28 Enteral vs parenteral nutrition | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of ventilator‐free days up to day 28 Enteral vs parenteral nutrition | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 2388 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events: aspiration (as reported by study authors at end of study Enteral vs parenteral nutrition | RR 1.53 [0.46, 5.03] | 2 studies · 2437 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events: sepsis (as reported by study authors at end of study Enteral vs parenteral nutrition | RR 0.59 [0.37, 0.95] | 7 studies · 361 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events: pneumonia (as reported by study authors at end of study Enteral vs parenteral nutrition | RR 1.1 [0.82, 1.48] | 7 studies · 415 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events: vomiting (as reported by study authors at end of study Enteral vs parenteral nutrition | RR 3.42 [1.15, 10.16] | 3 studies · 2525 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Enteral versus enteral and parenteral nutrition for adults in the intensive care unit
Population: critically ill adults admitted to the ICU for trauma, emergency, or post‐surgical care; population excludes participants with acute pancreatitis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality Enteral vs enteral and parenteral nutrition | RR 0.99 [0.84, 1.16] | 5 studies · 5111 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Number of ICU‐free days up to day 28 Enteral vs enteral and parenteral nutrition | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of ventilator‐free days up to day 28 Enteral vs enteral and parenteral nutrition | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events: aspiration (as reported by study authors at end of study Enteral vs enteral and parenteral nutrition | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events: sepsis (as reported by study authors at end of study Enteral vs enteral and parenteral nutrition | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events: pneumonia (as reported by study authors at end of study Enteral vs enteral and parenteral nutrition | RR 1.4 [0.91, 2.15] | 2 studies · 205 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events: vomiting (as reported by study authors at end of study Enteral vs enteral and parenteral nutrition | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |