Cited by 91Burn Injury Management and OutcomesClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

Early Enteral Nutrition Does Not Decrease Hypermetabolism Associated with Burn Injury

Peck, Michael D., Kessler, Mary, Cairns, Bruce A., Chang, Yih-Harn, Ivanova, Anastasia, Schooler, Wesley·2004·The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care

Abstract

Background A prospective, randomized study was performed to compare the effects of early versus late enteral feeding on postburn metabolism. Methods Burn patients were randomized to receive enteral feedings either within 24 hours (early) or 7 days (late) of injury. Basal energy expenditure (BEE) was calculated from Harris-Benedict equations and resting energy expenditure (REE) was obtained from indirect calorimetry. The average daily energy expenditure (DEE) was expressed as REE/BEE. Results Average age, burn size, infections, and length of stay were similar between groups. Mortality between groups was similar (early, 28%; late, 38%) and not significantly influenced by inhalation injury. When controlled for percentage of total body surface area burn, inhalation injury, and age, the early group had an increased rather than decreased DEE, with a mean DEE calorie 0.17 more than the late group (p = 0.07). Conclusion Early enteral feeding does not decrease the average energy expenditure associated with burn injury.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ta.0000145826.84657.38

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In comparing early enteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition, results showed reduction of infectious complications in early enteral nutrition (RR 0.76, CI 0.59, 0.97, p<0.03).

    “In comparing early EN vs delayed EN (including six studies in ICU patients (51,52,53,54,55,56) and four studies including non-ICU patients (57,58,59,60)), and similar to an earlier metaanalysis (15), our results showed reduction of infectious complications in early EN (RR 0.76, CI 0.59, 0.97, p<0.03).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peck, M. D., Kessler, M., Cairns, B. A., Chang, Y.-H., Ivanova, A., & Schooler, W.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care
Published
2004-12
Volume
57
Issue
6
Pages
1143-1149
ISSN
0022-5282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965276577
Cited by
91
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (RR00046, M01RR000046)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
early enteral nutrition, burns, hypermetabolism, energy expenditure, resting energy expenditure, basal energy expenditure, timing of enteral feeding, inhalation injury, mortality
MeSH terms
Adult, Burns, Energy Metabolism, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Humans, Male, Time Factors, Linear Models

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