13054_2016_1298_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (155.97 kB)
0/0

Additional file 2: Figure A1. of Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Download (155.97 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 29.04.2016 by Gunnar Elke, Arthur van Zanten, Margot Lemieux, Michele McCall, Khursheed Jeejeebhoy, Matthias Kott, Xuran Jiang, Andrew Day, Daren Heyland
Subgroup analysis comparing the effect of enteral versus parenteral nutrition according to the caloric intake on length of intensive care unit stay (N = 4 studies). Panel A shows the subgroup of aggregated trials in which the caloric intake in the PN group was significantly higher than in the EN group, Panel B shows the subgroup of aggregated trials in which the PN and EN groups received similar caloric intake and Panel C including one trial where caloric intake was not reported. CI confidence interval, EN enteral nutrition, M-H Mantel-Haenszel test, PN parenteral nutrition. Figure A2. Subgroup analysis comparing the effect of enteral versus parenteral nutrition on length of hospital stay according to the caloric intake (N = 7 studies). Panel A shows the subgroup of aggregated trials in which the caloric intake in the PN group was significantly higher than in the EN group, Panel B shows the subgroup of aggregated trials in which the PN and EN groups received similar caloric intake and Panel C including one trial where caloric intake was not reported. CI confidence interval, EN enteral nutrition, IV inverse variance, M-H Mantel-Haenszel test, PN parenteral nutrition. (PDF 148 kb)

History

Exports