Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 118 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nutritional support for children during critical illness: European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) metabolism, endocrine and nutrition section position statement and clinical recommendations

Open access
Tume, Lyvonne N., Valla, Frederic V., Joosten, Koen, Jotterand Chaparro, Corinne, Latten, Lynne, Marino, Luise V., Macleod, Isobel, Moullet, Clémence, Pathan, Nazima, Rooze, Shancy, van Rosmalen, Joost, Verbruggen, Sascha C. A. T.·2020·Intensive Care Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s00134-019-05922-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nutritional support is considered essential for the outcome of paediatric critical illness. There is a lack of methodologically sound trials to provide evidence-based guidelines leading to diverse practices in PICUs worldwide. Acknowledging these limitations, we aimed to summarize the available literature and provide practical guidance for the paediatric critical care clinicians around important clinical questions many of which are not covered by previous guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide an ESPNIC position statement and make clinical recommendations for the assessment and nutritional support in critically ill infants and children. DESIGN: The metabolism, endocrine and nutrition (MEN) section of the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) generated 15 clinical questions regarding different aspects of nutrition in critically ill children. After a systematic literature search, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) grading system was applied to assess the quality of the evidence, conducting meta-analyses where possible, to generate statements and clinical recommendations, which were then voted on electronically. Strong consensus (> 95% agreement) and consensus (> 75% agreement) on these statements and recommendations was measured through modified Delphi voting rounds. RESULTS: The final 15 clinical questions generated a total of 7261 abstracts, of which 142 publications were identified relevant to develop 32 recommendations. A strong consensus was reached in 21 (66%) and consensus was reached in 11 (34%) of the recommendations. Only 11 meta-analyses could be performed on 5 questions. CONCLUSIONS: We present a position statement and clinical practice recommendations. The general level of evidence of the available literature was low. We have summarised this and provided a practical guidance for the paediatric critical care clinicians around important clinical questions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00134-019-05922-5

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Tume, L. N., Valla, F. V., Joosten, K., Jotterand Chaparro, C., Latten, L., Marino, L. V., Macleod, I., Moullet, C., Pathan, N., Rooze, S., van Rosmalen, J., & Verbruggen, S. C. A. T.
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-02-20
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
411-425
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
DOI
10.1007/s00134-019-05922-5
OpenAlex
W2999107039
Cited by
313
References
118
FWCI
19.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.