ArticleJournal of intensive care2026
Association between age and outcomes of evidence-based feeding protocol versus usual care in critically ill patients: secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomised controlled trial.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNutrition therapy is essential in critically ill patients, yet large randomised trials have shown inconsistent results regarding the effect of an evidence-based feeding protocol. The NEED trial showed a feeding protocol could effectively promote delivery of enteral nutrition (EN) but did not reduce mortality. Age-related physiological differences may modify responses to nutritional therapy. This post hoc analysis of the NEED trial evaluated whether age modifies the association between implementation of an evidence-based feeding protocol and clinical outcomes among critically ill patients.
methodsThis secondary analysis used data from the multicentre cluster-randomised NEED trial conducted across intensive care units (ICUs) in China. Adult patients newly admitted to participating ICUs were assigned to active implementation of a feeding protocol or usual care. Age was analyzed as both a continuous variable and predefined categories (≤65, 66-75, and ≥76 years). The primary effect-modification analysis evaluated the treatment-age interaction for 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome analyses, including organ failure (OF), persistent multiple OF, ICU length of stay, ICU-free days, infection within 7 days, and feeding intolerance, were exploratory. Mixed-effects Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess treatment effects and age-treatment interactions.
resultsAmong 2672 patients included in the analysis (median age 62 years [IQR 49-74]; 1798 [67.3%] male), the effect of evidence-based feeding protocol on 28-day mortality varied with age. Treatment benefit attenuated progressively with increasing age, with each 10-year increase associated with a higher adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality (1.28; 95% CI 1.13-1.46; continuous interaction P < 0.001). In age-stratified analyses, the intervention reduced mortality in patients aged ≤65 years (adjusted HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.92) but not in those aged 66-75 years (adjusted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.64-1.60) or ≥76 years (adjusted HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88; categorical interaction P = 0.010). An exploratory analysis showed a similar age-dependent pattern for persistent multiple OF (interaction P = 0.017). Results were consistent in per-protocol and sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsIn this secondary analysis, associations between an evidence-based feeding protocol and clinical outcomes differed across age groups. These exploratory and hypothesis-generating findings suggest potential age-related heterogeneity in treatment response, which requires confirmation in future prospective studies. Research registration unique identifying number (UIN) of the original NEED trial: ISRCTN Registry, Registry number: ISRCTN 12233792, registered on November 24, 2017.
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.