Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Comparison with prior meta-analyses

From: Small bowel feeding and risk of pneumonia in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

  Heyland et al. [6] Marik et al. [7] Ho et al. [8] Jiyong et al. [9] Alhazzani et al.
Total number of RCTs (patients) 10 (576) 9 (522) 11 (637) 15 (966) 19 (1394)
Population Adult critically ill Adult critically ill Adult critically ill Adults and pediatric critically ill Adult critically ill
Outcomes
(number of RCTs)
Pneumonia (7)
Mortality (9)
Nutritional delivery (9)
Pneumonia (7)
Nutritional delivery (6)
ICU LoS (5)
Mortality (7)
Pneumonia (7)
Mortality (8)
ICU LoS (5)
Aspiration (2)
Diarrhea (5)
Complications (5)
Nutritional delivery (7)
Pneumonia (11)
Aspiration (7)
Vomiting (6)
Pneumonia (12)
Mortality (15)
ICU LoS (8)
DMV (3)
GI bleeding (6)
Aspiration (6)
Vomiting (6)
Nutritional delivery (15)
Pneumonia
RR (95% CI)
0.76 (0.59, 0.99) 1.44 (0.84, 2.46) a
in favor of small bowel feeding
1.28 (0.91, 1.80) b
in favor of small bowel feeding
0.63 (0.48, 0.83) 0.70 (0.55, 0.90)
Comments Different methods in data abstraction, and inclusion of studies with multiple interventions that should be excluded Aspiration events was analyzed as pneumonia in one of the studies Combined pneumonia and aspiration as a single outcome Combined adult and pediatric studies.
Did not include data from most recent RCTs
 
  1. a Odds ratio (95% CI)
  2. b Aspiration and pneumonia analyzed as single outcome
  3. CI, confidence interval; DMV, duration of mechanical ventilation; GI, gastrointestinal; LoS, length of stay; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, risk ratio.