SynthesisScientific reports2023
Small peptide formulas versus standard polymeric formulas in critically ill patients with acute gastrointestinal injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of peptide-based versus standard polymeric enteral nutrition in ICU patients at high nutritional risk: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Exploring the incidence and influencing factors of acute gastrointestinal injury in ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: a retrospective cohort study.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Continuous peptide-based versus sequential standard polymeric enteral nutrition formula in critically ill patients with acute gastrointestinal injury: study protocol for a single-center, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Semi-elemental versus polymeric formula for enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Small peptide formulas versus standard polymeric formulas for enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) have been a topic of debate. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare their clinical and nutritional outcomes. Relevant studies from January 1980 to June 2022 were searched in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Randomized controlled trials involving AGI grade I-IV patients were included, while children, non-AGI patients, and non-critically ill patients were excluded. Results indicated no significant difference in all-cause mortality. Patients receiving small peptide formulas showed higher daily protein intake, greater albumin growth, and higher prealbumin levels. They also had shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. Conversely, patients receiving standard polymeric formulas had a higher daily calorie intake. In conclusion, the choice of formula may not affect mortality in critically ill patients with AGI. Small peptide formulas were more conducive to increase daily protein intake, decrease intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of these two nutritional formulas on clinical and nutritional outcomes in critically ill patients with AGI are needed to confirm these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.