Are prospective cohort studies an appropriate tool to answer clinical nutrition questions?
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Randomized controlled trials can be difficult to conduct in critically ill patients and may not always be the most appropriate type of study. Cohort studies can provide valuable information in large complete populations of patients without strict exclusion criteria and without the need for informed consent, thus potentially being more representative of and applicable to daily practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent cohort studies have evaluated the various aspects of the epidemiology and practice of nutrition in critically ill patients, including the proportions of patients receiving different types of nutritional support, the potential benefits of supplementary parenteral nutrition, the importance of meeting nutrition targets especially for protein, and the beneficial effects of feeding protocols on outcomes. SUMMARY: Results from some of these cohort studies have provided an indication of how nutrition guidelines have been applied in clinical practice and which areas need to be improved. Others have generated hypotheses that will be (or are already being) tested in randomized studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Some other studies addressing supplemental PN did not show similar findings to the EPaNIC study.
“Some of the other studies addressing supplemental PN (128, 154, 155) did not show similar findings to the EPaNIC study.”
From ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. (2019) · cites this paper as [154]
Doig et al. showed benefit (reduction of ventilation time and improved strength) when administering 1 g/kg/day protein.
“On the other hand, Doig et al (154) showed benefit (reduction of ventilation time and improved strength) when administering 1 g/kg/day protein.”
From ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. (2019) · cites this paper as [154]
Cites
Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults
Casaer, M. P., Mesotten, D., Hermans, G., Wouters, P. J., Schetz, M., Meyfroidt, G., Van Cromphaut, S., Ingels, C., Meersseman, P., Muller, J., et al. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102662 · Cited by 1,696 · see citing works
Provision of protein and energy in relation to measured requirements in intensive care patients
Allingstrup, M. J., Esmailzadeh, N., Wilkens Knudsen, A., Espersen, K., Hartvig Jensen, T., Wiis, J., Perner, A., & Kondrup, J. (2012) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2011.12.006 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Randomized comparison of nasojejunal and nasogastric feeding in critically ill patients
Davies, A. R., Froomes, P. R. A., French, C. J., Bellomo, R., Gutteridge, G. A., Nyulasi, I., Walker, R., & Sewell, R. B. (2002) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-200203000-00016 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit.
Singer, P., Blaser, A. R., Berger, M. M., Alhazzani, W., Calder, P. C., Casaer, M. P., Hiesmayr, M., Mayer, K., Montejo, J. C., Pichard, C., et al. (2019) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2018.08.037 · Cited by 2,904 · see citing works
Self-citationParenteral glutamine supplementation in critical illness: a systematic review
Wischmeyer, P. E., Dhaliwal, R., McCall, M., Ziegler, T. R., & Heyland, D. K. (2014) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc13836 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
- Authors
- Vincent, J.-L., & Preiser, J.-C.
- Affiliations
- Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Vincent, Jean-Louis
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 182-186
- ISSN
- 1363-1950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2067566832
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 1.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- prospective cohort, critically ill patients, clinical nutrition, nutritional support, parenteral nutrition, feeding protocol, dietary guidelines
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Nutritional Status, Parenteral Nutrition, Cohort Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual, Critical Illness
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
