ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
Interpreting protein dose trials in critical illness: a guide for the bedside clinician.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCritical illness induces a catabolic state, associated with profound muscle wasting and functional disability in survivors. Based on evidence at the time of development, international critical care nutrition guidelines recommend providing higher protein doses than in healthy populations. MAIN BODY: Three recent international multi-centre randomised trials (total n = 5633 patients) have compared higher protein doses to usual protein doses in critically ill patients. Based on the primary outcomes, these trials concluded that higher protein doses did not improve time-to-discharge alive or number of days free of the index hospital and alive at day 90, with worse functional recovery using the EQ-5D-5L health utility score over 180 days. Supported by evidence from recent trials, it appears preferable to commence protein delivery at low doses once patients are haemodynamically stable and increase progressively over the first 5 days to deliver a maximum of 1.2 g/kg/day. Based on current trial data, this upper limit may represent a safer alternative to doses >1.2 g/kg/day, acknowledging that the optimal dose may be lower. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with an acute kidney injury may be particularly vulnerable to higher protein. There are no data to indicate the minimum protein dose that can be safely delivered to critically ill patients over their entire ICU stay. While existing trials included patients with a prolonged ICU stay, no trial identifying this cohort pre-randomisation has been conducted. It cannot be excluded that higher protein doses may provide benefit later in recovery, when the anabolic resistance to dietary protein observed early in the ICU admission has subsided. Evidence is also lacking on optimal protein targets for patients after ICU discharge.
conclusionIn critically ill adults, we suggest that protein doses be commenced at a low dose and increased progressively to a maximum of 1.2 g/kg/day based on recent randomised trials.
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.